Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

From August 18, 2014, the execution officer D, who belongs to the Goyang branch court of Goyang branch court (Defendant A) of the offense, seized 8 tangible properties, such as TV (LG) owned by Defendant A, in accordance with the original text of the judgment No. 37862 of the above court that was delegated the enforcement of creditor F within the residence of the Defendant No. 2013, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Busan, multi-household 202 and 303, and the apartment house No. 37862, and attached a seizure mark on the goods.

However, on October 16, 2014, Defendant A moved the above seized object to the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G, 101 Dong-dong 1401, and removed without permission the attachment labeling attached to the above seized object.

As a result, Defendant A damaged the attachment indication that public officials performed in connection with their duties, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the attachment indication.

Summary of Evidence (Defendant A)

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A protocol of seizure of movables, each list of seizure, a protocol of execution of delivery of immovables, or an impossible protocol of auction of movables;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes related to photographs of seized objects (Defendant A);

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. Judgment of not guilty under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant B) of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The summary of the charges against Defendant B, in collusion with A, led the public official to impair the attachment indication that he/she performed in connection with his/her duties by moving the seized object as stated in the facts constituting the crime against Defendant A and removing the attachment indication attached to the seized object.

2. First of all, there was a second-time protocol of interrogation of the police against the defendant B, which the defendant B stated to the effect that it appears to correspond to the above facts charged, and since the investigation agency, the defendant B submitted an application for the transfer of seized objects to the execution officer before this case, and transferred the seized objects with the permission of the execution officer.