A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant owns 61 points of goods equivalent to the total market value of 133,315,200 won and 133,315,200 won, such as books, shocks, etc. kept in the defendant's warehouse B and C.

On July 26, 2019, the execution officer D affiliated with Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch's decision to seize the said goods at the defendant's warehouse and attached a seizure mark on the goods with the execution entrusted by the creditor's creditor-nam Branch's ECE.

However, on July 27, 2019, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s warehouse, removed without permission the attachment indication attached to 4, 61 Pool 350 Pool 350 Pool from the above attached goods, and concealed them to a third party, thereby impairing the utility of the indication of the compulsory disposition.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A complaint for the establishment of the investment trust agreement;

1. Receipt of execution, protocol of inspection of seized objects, written decision of 2016Ga group 12138, and execution clause (2016Ga group 12138);

1. Photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the crime of this case under the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act undermines the function of the state's compulsory disposition by impairing the effectiveness of attachment indication

The fact that the defendant does not have a certain value of the subject matter of the attachment indication that has impaired the utility is disadvantageous.

However, in full view of various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, there is no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine since 1993, and the sentence shall be determined like the order.