Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a sectional owner in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B, A, 109.

On May 19, 2014, the enforcement officer C, who belongs to the Seoul Central District Court, was delegated with the execution of the creditor D and performed the opening of the entrance and the compulsory execution of delivery of the above commercial building No. 109 and delivered the entrance possession to the creditor.

However, around July 2, 2014, the Defendant violated the closure of the above entrance and the compulsory execution of India, and changed the phenomenon by removing the outer wall of the glass wall, which is the entrance of the above 109, and installing a new glass wall on the site.

As a result, the defendant has harmed the effectiveness of the attachment indication that public officials performed in relation to their duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the petition of complaints filed in DNA;

1. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty, on the ground that the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act, Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, the Defendant, who

On the other hand, even if the defendant installed a new glass wall and installed a new glass wall to close the entrance completely, and then installed a court notice on the glass wall, the defendant's arbitrary removal of the glass wall's outer wall, which is an indication of the compulsory disposition taken by the execution officer, without the consent of the execution creditor or execution officer, constitutes the crime of nullifying or destroying the indication itself as an act of practically reducing or destroying the effect of the indication itself, and constitutes the crime of

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant received the entrance closure report to the execution office through a certified judicial scrivener, and the defendant has not been transferred to the execution office, and it is legitimate to return it.