Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On June 30, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 30, 2016.

[2] The Defendant owned 10 points of the total market value of KRW 1,490,00 as indicated in the following crime sight table as well as 10 points of the Defendant’s house located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu’s apartment B, 10 Dong 309.

On April 21, 2015, the enforcement officer C belonging to the Seoul Northern District Court attached the above articles by the original copy of the decision of seizure of the movable properties of 1435, which was delegated to creditor D by creditor D on April 21, 2015.

However, around December 21, 2015, the Defendant disposed of some of the above goods at the Defendant’s house, and some of the goods damaged the effectiveness of attachment execution by removing attachment marking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint filed in D;

1. An abstract of a report on seizure of movable property, a report on inspection of seized property, or a resident registration card;

1. Each investigation report (victim D telephone conversations, suspect E telephone conversations, hearing of complainants' statements, suspect E telephone investigation);

1. Previous convictions: Inquiries about criminal history and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of related cases);

1. Article 140(1) of the Criminal Code of the relevant Article on criminal facts (the crime of this case is an invalid indication in the line of duty, and the crime of this case is an offence infringing on the state’s official duties and especially the function of marking a compulsory disposition, and in order to recover damage inflicted upon the victim of the fraudulent act committed by the defendant, a seizure execution on a movable owned by the defendant was conducted, but a compulsory auction was postponed at the defendant’s request, but the seizure was delayed. However, the defendant arbitrarily removed the seizure indication without releasing the seizure execution through lawful procedures, such as repayment of the movable by the picture or withdrawal of the creditor’s request.