logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.11.19 2014고정1375
공무상표시무효
Text

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

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

At the defendant's house of 308,904, the defendant owned 4 points of computer and monitor, Not North 1, gallonian 1, gallon 1, gallon 1, and 1.5 million won in total market value at the defendant's house of optical apartment 308,904.

On May 30, 2014, enforcement officers D belonging to the Seoul Central District Court seized the above goods at the defendant's home and attached a mark of seizure on the goods by virtue of the original copy of the above court 2013Gaso6031243, upon delegation of execution by creditors E.

However, around 15:20 on June 19, 2014, the Defendant carried the above goods with the attachment marks attached at the Defendant’s home.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of the indication of compulsory disposition that a public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to corporeal movables seizure, search numbers, copies of seizure lists, list of seizure sites and photographs;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act bearing litigation costs, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that among the seized articles stated in the facts constituting a crime, the attachment disposition taken by an execution officer against the computer and monitoring one computer, No. North Korean one, and gallon No No. 10.11, which are not owned by the Defendant is null and void, and the Defendant merely uses the seized articles without disposing of the above attached articles, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional crime of

If it is obvious that the seal or seizure or other compulsory disposition that a public official illegally conducted by abusing his official authority is an indication of the seal or seizure or other compulsory disposition, and thus it can be deemed a legal invalidation or absence, such indication of the seal, etc. shall not be the object of the crime of invalidation of

arrow