Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the director of the management office affiliated with D who is in charge of the management of building C in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and Defendant B is the actual operator of the above D.

On September 6, 2016, the Defendants knew that the enforcement officer of the Incheon District Court attached a provisional disposition to the management office of the second underground floor of the C building with the title of "Seoul High Court 2015Ra20534, the suspension of service management activities, evictions, prohibition of entry and exit, and provisional disposition of prohibition of distribution, such as inducements," which is the debtor of D and the Defendant as the debtor of D and C, upon delegation of the enforcement officer of the C building management office of the C building (representativeF).

Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to have access to the above management office from around that time to June 2017, and continued to collect management expenses from the sectional owners and shop occupants of the building and spent them for the management purpose, such as electricity charges and water charges, thereby harming the utility of the above provisional disposition mark.

As a result, the Defendants conspired, thereby damaging or concealing the indication of provisional disposition that public officials performed in connection with their duties, or harming their utility by other means.

2. Determination

A. The crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime committed by a public official by damaging or concealing an indication that he/she has taken specific compulsory measures, such as sealing, seizing movable property, occupying real estate, etc. in connection with his/her duties,

Therefore, if an execution officer did not perform specific execution acts such as ordering the respondent to submit a provisional disposition ordering the omission from the court, and furthermore, moving the seals or objects to his own possession, etc., the execution officer merely violates the order of omission of the above provisional disposition does not constitute an act detrimental to the utility of an indication in the course of performing official duties, and sentenced the Supreme Court on December 24, 2008.