The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who conducts a competitive business with the trade name of D Farmwon in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

On December 8, 2016, Cheongju District Court, E seized species 21 on the basis of the original order of payment order No. 2016, No. 2016, No. 225 of the Daejeon District Court, which has the executive force with the delegation of creditor F from the above place to the creditor F at the above place, and indicated that the execution officer E seized species 21, such as a tombum, and displayed it.

Nevertheless, on March 2017, the Defendant disposed of the 350 Posium 350 Posium among the species 21 of the above seedlings, and the 20 Posium 20 Basium to G, the owner of which was the Posium.

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. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Two-time suspect examination protocol against the accused (including G substitute part);

1. Partial statements made to F in the police statement protocol;

1. On-site photographs and a G statement;

1. The investigation report (the list Nos. 9);

1. Application of a record of seizure of corporeal movables and the list statutes;

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;

2. 70,000 won of a fine for which a sentence is suspended.

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day).

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Pronouncement of Sentence / [Disadvantageous circumstances] The crime of this case is that the defendant impairs the utility of the attachment indication that the public official performed in relation to his/her duties, and the nature of the crime is not weak

[The favorable circumstances] The Defendant committed the instant crime, and is able to repent of his mistake.

The Defendant, who had been kept in custody upon the request of the proprietor of the instant grave upon the request of the proprietor of the instant grave, was unable to receive a reasonable price when he was requested to return the grave for sale and was not sold at the time. In light of the motive and circumstances leading up to the instant grave, there were extenuating circumstances.

After the crime of this case was committed.