beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2012.11.30 2012노2141

강제집행면탈

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that the business registration name of the cafeteria B (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) operated by the Defendant was changed to D, which is his father. However, in light of the fact that the complainant completed compulsory execution against the lease deposit claim for the instant cafeteria (hereinafter “lease deposit claim”) and the equipment such as the house (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) after E, the Defendant’s above act cannot be deemed as an act of hiding the lease deposit claim. However, the lower court convicting the Defendant of the charges of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine of evasion of compulsory execution, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case ex officio and at the trial below.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is because it applied for changes in the contents as stated in the paragraph, and this court permitted changes in the contents.

However, the above argument of the defendant is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

B. The summary of the revised facts charged is that the Defendant registered his/her business in his/her name with the trade name of "Yong-gu B cafeteria" and operated the above restaurant from March 2009.

However, on June 24, 2009, the defendant's creditor filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the loan claim of KRW 15 million against the defendant with the Busan District Court Branch 2007Da30658, Busan District Court Branch 2007Gadan30658, and subsequently requested the above court to issue a seizure and collection order for the credit card sales claim of the above restaurant and requested the above court to issue a seizure and collection order for the above restaurant's credit card sales claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant is also the victim C with respect to the claim to return the deposit for lease on the above restaurant, the corporeal movables in the restaurant, which is one of his own other properties.