A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. From June 201, the Defendant in breach of trust: (a) from around 2011, the Defendant was operating a factory of the trade name “E” in the name of “E” (the representative in the name of the Defendant is F, who is his/her father) by leasing a building D located in the land owned by the Victim C; (b) around April 28, 2014, entered into a loan agreement with the victim by settling accounts of the enclosed rent and loan amount of KRW 12,7610,00 in the amount of debt with the victim and providing the Defendant with 13 items, including one smuggling and one half line, as security; and (c) on May 8, 2014, written a fair deed of the said loan agreement.

Therefore, even though the defendant had a duty to keep each of the above collateral in order for the transferred collateral holder to achieve the purpose of the collateral, the defendant violated such duty and disposed of one half of the first half of the market price of the above "E" factory building in the middle of February 2015 to a seller of used machines who sells used machines with the market price of 4 million won and 6 million won in the market price.

As a result, the Defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million in total from the market price of the above smuggling and line, and caused damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. The Defendant, as described in paragraph (1), owns 13 points of goods offered as security to creditors C, as indicated in the judgment below. However, with the delegation of enforcement by creditors C, the execution officer G belonging to Suwon District Court attached the attachment indication on February 5, 2015 on the total nine collateral, including (n) punching, among the collateral, based on the authentic copy of the additional seizure protocol of 2015 and 674 of the said court.

However, on March 2015, the Defendant removed, without permission, the attachment labeling attached to Hunch (2) out of the above goods within the factory.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the attachment indication that a public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. C Additional vindications 1.