The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) The trees listed in the facts charged in the instant golf course (hereinafter “the trees of this case”) are consistent with the land and integrated with the land, thereby making it clear that the execution officer did not own the debtor at the time of seizure.

Nevertheless, the enforcement officer judged that the trees of this case are owned by the debtor and affixed a seizure mark on trees. Since such seizure marks are legally null and void, they do not constitute the objects of the crime of invalidation of public duties.

Therefore, even if the Defendant removed the attachment indication attached to the trees of this case as in the facts charged, the crime of invalidation of the indication in the line of duty is not established.

2) Since there exists a justifiable reason for the Defendant to believe that the attachment indication has no legal effect, at the time of removing the attachment indication, the Defendant had no intention to nullify the indication in the line of official duty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the court below held that ① an execution officer does not have the authority to investigate the ownership relationship of the substance, so if a movable owned by the debtor is a movable, it may seize the movable without asking whether it belongs to the debtor (Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act), ② if a third party has ownership and other rights, if the debtor occupies the movable, seizure thereof is not illegal, and the owner and the right holder of the movable may file a lawsuit of demurrer against the third party, and ③ even if there is no enforcement claim, the execution act by the execution officer is not illegal and illegal, and the execution right holder shall be subject to remedy in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Civil Execution Act.