The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The prosecutor of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant was a person who actually operated “C Mart” on the first floor underground of the building located in Busan Jin-gu B (hereinafter “instant Mart”); and (b) was a lessee of the instant Mart around January 14, 2016.

D) A lawsuit was filed against the Busan District Court for the claim for the return of deposit (C. 2016 A. 301437). D is stated in the facts charged on May 19, 2016 as around June 1, 2016. However, in full view of the evidence examined in this court, it can be seen as above, and it cannot be said that it interferes with the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense by recognizing it as above without any changes in the indictment.

At the time of the instant Mart's name;

E With respect to 12 products, such as static-to-face shock cases, which are kept in custody within the instant Et as debt holders, the E shall not transfer the possession of the above products to another person or change the name of possession.

Notwithstanding the fact that the gold price prior to the possession of the movable property was well known to the effect that it was subject to a disposition of the gold price prior to the possession of the movable property ( Busan District Court Decision 2016KaMa3583, hereinafter “the instant provisional disposition”), the said gold price would have impaired the utility of the disposition of the gold price prior to the possession of the movable property by selling the said goods in cash to F around April 14, 2017, and delivering it to F for an amount of 52 million won.

Claimant, the defendant was prosecuted as a crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty.

2. The provisional disposition, in which the order of omission against the debtor of the provisional disposition is executed, and the defendant's act of violating the omission is not the debtor of the provisional disposition, shall not be deemed to impair the effectiveness of the indication of execution of such provisional disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5539, Nov. 16, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant, who was not the debtor of the provisional disposition of this case, violated the duty of omission ordered in such provisional disposition like facts charged.

8.2