beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.12.09 2014고정2534

민사집행법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was sentenced to the judgment on the purchase price of the creditor Co., Ltd. and Incheon District Court No. 201Gahap2681 on July 24, 2013, and around 15:30 on July 24, 2013, the Defendant appeared on the date of the application case, No. 101 of Seoul Northern District Court, No. 101, Jan. 20, 2012, and taken an oath that the list of property is true.

However, the Defendant submitted a false list of property, stating that the appraisal was owned in an amount equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion (1.7 billion) and did not enter it in the list of property, even though the appraisal was owned in an amount equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion (1.7 billion).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. As the representative director of DC, the defendant is the same person as the defendant.

The police statement about the police record;

1. Name, date, protocol and inventory of property;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of notice of auction date of movables;

1. Article 68 (9) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 68 (9) of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Act on the Provisional Payment Order is aged, and the defendant is recognized and against the mistake of this case. The tree of this case had already been auctioned by creditor C, and the creditor who already filed an application for the name of the property of this case is also a stock company C and thus, the creditor is already known to the creditor. Thus, it is not deemed that the defendant committed the crime of this case in bad faith in order to conceal the property. Rather, the defendant's assertion that the defendant had already been conducting an auction and omitted because he did not consider his own property as his own property, is reasonable, and there is a favorable circumstance to consider