Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall impair the utility of any sealing, seizure or other compulsory disposition conducted by a public official in connection with his/her duties by damaging or concealing it or by any other means.

On December 7, 2016, the Defendant was at the warehouse of Seocho-gu Seoul E and the first floor F, Seocho-gu, based on the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure of tangible property at the above court 2016Kao 812373, with the delegation of Kim, a creditor corporation, the Defendant:

The provisional attachment of 203 points was made from March 8, 2017 to 2010, while the enforcement officer arbitrarily moved 119 points out of the goods subject to the provisional attachment from that time to that of the 2017 to that of the 203 point, thereby impairing its utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the protocol of provisional seizure against movable property, protocol of inspection of seized property, certified copy of registry of each corporation, and statute of the ruling;

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. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not exist at the time of committing the crime.

there is a right to believe that there is a right to prejudice the effect of provisional seizure.

Since it was wrong, the intention of the crime is dismissed, and the claim of the creditor is dismissed in the actual lawsuit on the merits, the above provisional seizure is asserted to the effect that it is null and void.

G Co., Ltd., a debtor of the above provisional attachment decision, has an objection to the above provisional attachment decision, but it was decided to authorize the above provisional attachment decision on March 24, 2017, taking into account that the above provisional attachment decision was made, there was a right to deny the effect of provisional attachment at the time of committing

there was a legitimate basis for misunderstanding

In addition, the absence of the preserved claim becomes final and conclusive by a judgment after provisional seizure.

Since provisional seizure is not invalidated, the above argument cannot be accepted.