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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 15, 2013, the Defendant seized the articles equivalent to approximately KRW 974,810,000 at the market price, such as the 50 sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled 574,810,00 at the above court’s 50 sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sed sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sled sed sled sled sled sled sled sled sed sled sled sled sed sed sed sed sed sed sed 168.

Nevertheless, around September 2013, the Defendant transferred the large quantity of the above articles to the J warehouse located in JI at the time of old time with H, and had the effect of the indication of the compulsory disposition that the public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and K;

1. Partial statement of the defendant in the suspect examination protocol against the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of suspect of L by the prosecution (including each part of the statement in K and G);

1. The police statement of M;

1. A criminal investigation report (a statement of J staff member) and a criminal investigation report (a document of inspection of seized objects);

1. A copy of the attachment report on corporeal movables, a copy of the attachment report on corporeal movables, and the application of statutes;

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 sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds of sentencing for the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act undermines the effectiveness of the attachment indication, thereby undermining the function of the State, and undermining its trust, the nature of the crime is not good. The Defendant, who was sentenced to eight months in prison for fraud, committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime after the execution of the said sentence was completed. The obligees suffered from the instant crime.