The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged in the instant case based on relevant evidence, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant sold two horizontal-type automatic compression machines on March 2014 in D operated by the Defendant in Macheon-si, the Defendant had the effect of removing, without permission, the provisional disposition on September 13, 2013, by obtaining two copies of the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession or disposal of movable properties from the said court on September 13, 2013, by obtaining two copies of the above horizontal-type automatic compression machines and removing, without permission, the provisional disposition attached to the said articles upon obtaining two copies of the above horizontal-type automatic compression machines.

B. In consideration of the following circumstances, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of a crime.

1) The prosecutor’s investigation report and attached materials are the purport that the injured party, the creditor, received a provisional disposition order on the two advanced machines, and sent a notice to the execution officer on September 13, 2013 on September 13, 2013 by entering the place of the debtor’s presence without the debtor’s presence. The E’s investigation agency and legal statement were attached to the right side of the aforesaid compressed machines at the same time and at the place of the above execution. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above evidence alone recognized that the defendant knew that the provisional disposition mark was attached to the two advanced machines or damaged its utility by removing it.

2) Rather, according to the statements of E, the above compressed language is compressed.