Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant resided in Dongducheon City C and owned TV, cooling house, electronic siren, laundry, kimchi cooling house, computer, monitor, and sulpulpon which amounting to a total of 820,00 won in the market price.

On April 18, 2017, enforcement officers D belonging to the Jung-gu District Court seized eight points on the part of the defendant under the above court ruling 2007Ga group 67333, and attach a seizure mark on the objects.

On January 29, 2018, the Defendant transferred the said articles without obtaining approval from enforcement officers or creditors, when the Defendant was holding directors as F1-201 at the same time in Dongducheon-si C.

In this respect, the defendant had the effect of the attachment indication that public officials performed in relation to their duties by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaints, records of seizure of movables, records of inspection of seized movables, records of judgement, records of police preparation and statement to E, records of investigation (specific details of the suspect's identity), photographs of seized objects;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 140 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant relocated the seized object without prior approval while moving his place of residence; and (c) there are circumstances under which the Defendant’s relocation of the seized object without prior approval; and (d) the fact that the Defendant could have been keeping the seized object in custody even after the transfer is recognized as favorable

However, the crime of this case where the defendant transferred the seized materials without prior approval and caused the effectiveness of the attachment indication to be used is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the content and method of the crime, there are several records of punishment due to the crime of this kind, and general cases of the same kind and similar.