The crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty is established by denying whether the provisional disposition decision was a legitimate party and by doing an act detrimental to the effectiveness itself of the notice that the notice was issued as the execution of the decision.

The crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty shall be established by preventing the existence of the requisite of the right to collateral by a provisional disposition and by doing an act undermining the effectiveness of a notice given by the office as an execution of the decision.

Article 140 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and seven others

Daegu District Court Decision 69No1020 delivered on November 27, 1970

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

It is judged on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal presented by their defense counsel.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the records is as follows: the defendant et al., who were directors, imposition chiefs, sales clerks or other employees of the company (trade name omitted) and were employed by the Daegu District Court on Sep. 13, 1968 by delegation of the Daegu District Court on Sep. 13, 1968 at the Daegu District Court's 68Ka3388, where the defendant et al. conspired with each other while being aware of the fact that the defendant et al. had set up a public notice board stating the purpose of the decision in the place of selling fishery products within the Daegu City's Central Wholesale Market's fishery product distribution store and continued to engage in the sales business in violation of the purpose of the public notice within the said place of fishery products, and thus, the court below's decision was legitimate since the first instance court's decision maintained by the original judgment was based on the facts that the defendants, the debtor of the above provisional disposition, knew of such facts and did not know about the existence or absence of the above public notice as to whether the above order of selling fishery products was legitimate.

2. Even if the date of the establishment of the above company and the business contents in the articles of incorporation were as alleged in the first point in the theory of lawsuit, the contents of the decision of provisional disposition in wartime and the purport of the public notice as its execution is not related to the general prohibition of the business activities of the company itself, and it is obvious that the Daegu City Mayor, which is the founder of the large central market, was the prohibition of the above company's sales activities in the above company's sales stores in the above market established by it, and the evidence adopted by the court below in one record was considered as a whole and the defendants were to establish a public notice board clearly stating the purpose of the above provisional disposition's decision, such as the transfer of fishery products in the above market during the original market while knowing the fact that the defendants continued to conduct business activities in violation of the purpose of the public notice, or there was no evidence to find that there was an error such as the misunderstanding of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles, we cannot accept the discussion on the facts established in the original judgment (No.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 390 and 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)