1. A. The part of the judgment below on the evasion of compulsory execution is reversed.

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case

1. Although the facts charged against the defendant against the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) are to be found guilty on the basis of relevant evidence, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged, and the court below erred by mistake of facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in relation to evasion of compulsory execution among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial below.

4. A. Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed as stated in the Paragraph, and since this Court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment, the part of the judgment of the court below on the evasion of compulsory execution cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below in light of the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Determination on the concealment of indication of official duties among the facts charged of the instant case

A. On November 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) carried out a provisional attachment on the part of the court enforcement officer F of the building located in Spocheon-si C by the order of 2013Kada 5787, which is the movable property owned by D (State) 25 rolls and 15 rolls, which was located inside the above building; (b) however, from around that time to around December 26, 201, the Defendant carried out an indication that the provisional attachment would be carried out by arbitrarily transferring the original part of the market price, 25 rolls and 15 rolls of the original part of the market price, which was provisionally seized, from the time of the provisional attachment, to the time of the same month, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the provisional attachment.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the aforementioned facts charged on the ground that it became a provisional attachment on the original group 40 roll (hereinafter “the original group of this case”) stated in the above facts charged, and that it was insufficient to recognize it as such.

① At the time of the execution of the provisional attachment of this case, I taken the process of execution as a camera.