Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2012, the enforcement officer B belonging to Suwon District Court attached the goods equivalent to KRW 73,191,000 at the market price, such as PE lamps, based on the original copy of the decision of seizure of tangible movables in the above court, at the office of the defendant located in Suwon District Court on August 17, 2012, with the delegation of the enforcement of the e-mail of the creditor Co., Ltd. to the creditor Co., Ltd., the creditor Co., Ltd., and attached an indication of the seizure

On June 21, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily transferred part of the above seized goods kept in D at the Nam-si, Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, to another place, and the remainder was discarded, and thus, the Defendant concealed the indication of seizure performed by the public official in relation to his/her duties or made it effective by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. The police statement protocol with respect to E, F and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (each telephone investigation, submission of suspect photographic data and additional submission, confirmation of location of seized articles);

1. Article 140 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order [in case where the defendant moves seized water from the creditor or execution officer's original storage place to another place located within a reasonable distance, it constitutes "a case where the execution of the seizure is considerably difficult objectively even if the defendant's execution is not for the purpose of evading execution," and it constitutes "a case where the utility has been harmed by any other means" under Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do69, Mar. 25, 1986).]