The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that auction has been conducted in the defendant's residence, that the defendant mainly lives in the above residence, and that the defendant prepared and submitted an application for preferential purchase with respect to separate seized goods, etc. According to this, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant disposed of the above goods with knowledge of the seizure of goods, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of mistake of facts even though

2. Evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and, in particular, the auction of the seized goods of this case has been conducted five times from January 4, 2012 to March 15, 2012 by means of a quoted auction. The fact that the director’s notice to the creditor was sent only after March 10, 2016 (in the case of a provisional auction for corporeal movables, the date of the provisional auction is postponed or continued unless the sale is conducted for the reasons such as the absence of bidder, and that the defendant returned the seized goods to the person entitled to receive the seized goods, such as the debtor, or from March 4, 2012 by the method of the provisional auction (Article 188(3) of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 141 and 142 of the Rules) and that the director’s notice to the creditor was sent until March 10, 2016 (Article 215(3) of the Civil Execution Act). The provisional auction procedure for 201 to 201.