Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who was operating a “C” corporation located in the 3th floor in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City.

The enforcement officer D belonging to the Incheon District Court attached 8 kinds of goods, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form C owned by the above C and affixed a seizure indication on the goods at the office around January 15, 2016 by the Incheon District Court Decision 2014Gahap14401, which was delegated to the creditor E by the creditor E company.

Nevertheless, around September 2016, the defendant transferred the above C's office to Incheon Seo-gu F, removed each attachment marking Nos. 1, 6 of the annexed crime sight list No. 1, and moved from the existing office to the new office, and discarded goods Nos. 2 through 5, 7, and 8 of the annexed crime sight list.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the attachment indication that a public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes of the Incheon District Court to a decision to recommend reconciliation (2014Gahap14401 Costs of Goods), execution clause (2014Gahap14401 Costs of Goods), additional attachment report, attachment report by the Incheon District Court, attachment report by the Incheon District Court, attachment report, appraisal report, attachment report, appraisal report, record of inspection of seized objects, list of objects of attachment, old or light, packing machine (Korean) and packing machine (Korean).

1. Relevant Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order harms the utility of the seizure indication of corporeal movables performed by an execution officer at his own discretion. Although the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, it is against the recognition of the crime in this case, some of the seizure articles currently are in possession of the defendant, and some of the defendants are found to have committed the crime in this case without properly understanding the legal effect of the seizure indication.