However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Status and basic facts;

The defendant is a person who works as the head of C from August 2009 to the head of C.

Around July 22, 2008, when D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant in the Jeonyang-dong, the Defendant failed to repay the debt amounting to KRW 1.3 billion borrowed from the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the Defendant, who guaranteed said loan, was also unable to repay the above debt. On December 26, 2002, the Industrial Bank of Korea filed a loan claim lawsuit against D Co., Ltd and the Defendant, etc., with the Gwangju District Court, rendered a favorable judgment on June 5, 2003, and the judgment became final and conclusive. The above final and conclusive loan claims were transferred to Yangyang-dong Co., Ltd...., Ltd... on July 22, 2008. Before demanding debt collection for the Defendant’s residence, the Bank notified the Defendant of compulsory execution, including the principal and interest on loans, and overdue interest, and notified the Defendant of compulsory execution, 21320,274 and 300,000 won in order to avoid the above statutory execution procedure.

2. Criminal facts;

Around May 6, 2009, the Defendant resided in the building 306 in Ulsan-gu E, Ulsan-gu, the original domicile of which is the Defendant, and moved the resident registration place to 302, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, G 302, the Defendant’s domicile of which is the Defendant’s domicile. On July 15, 201, upon the death of F, the Defendant re-transfer the resident registration place to IJ (J) in Busan-gu, the address of H, the domicile of which is different.

On November 30, 2009, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,004,00 in the monthly account (Account Number L) of the Defendant, which was received from the Defendant Company C, in the account under the Defendant’s management, to January 30, 2012, and deposited KRW 27,083,212 in the name of K Industrial Bank of Korea over 26 times from that to that of the Defendant’s second, which was the Defendant’s account under the name of K (Account Number L). On December 21, 2010, the Defendant transferred KRW 200,000 to the Busan Bank Account (Account Number N) of the Defendant’s parent bank (hereinafter “C”) under the Defendant’s name, which was the Defendant’s possession and management, and again deposited part of the money into the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s account number (P) which was the Defendant’s account, and purchased the land under the Defendant’s name of KRW 400,000,00.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed monthly wages and piece rates received from C for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the creditor Yang Dong-song, Inc., and harmed the above creditors.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Investigation report (Submission of data, etc. on the details of payment of A benefits), K account details, etc.;

1. Results of the judgment in Gwangju District Court Decision 2002dan75334

1. Commencement of legal procedures and scheduled notification of compulsory execution;

1. Debt Certification Board;

1. Application of the statutes governing the decision of 2009Kahap1200

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 327 of the Criminal Act, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the fact that there is no previous conviction or heavier record of suspension of qualifications, and the fact that considerable portion of concealed property is real estate

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Defendant's assertion;

The Civil Execution Act provides that a monthly wage of 1.2 million won or less shall not be seized, so the defendant's wage claim of 1.0 million won or less per month is subject to compulsory execution because it is a claim to prohibit seizure.

is not the case.

The performance rate of KRW 200 million received from the account in the name of the defendant M is merely a repayment of money borrowed from M in the name of the defendant's business funds in around 1983, and thus is not subject to compulsory execution.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the object of the claim to be prohibited from seizure is deposited into the debtor's deposit account, the prohibition of seizure is no longer effective against the deposit claim, and such deposit does not constitute a claim to be prohibited from seizure (Supreme Court Order 9Ma4857 delivered on October 6, 199). Therefore, as long as the Defendant's payment was deposited into the Defendant's account in the name of K, this part of the Defendant's assertion is without merit.

(b) The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act refers to the act of causing a person who carries out compulsory execution to be unable to discover assets or making it difficult to detect assets;

As such, it includes not only cases where the location of property is unknown but also cases where the ownership of the property is unknown (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3387, Oct. 9, 2003; 2005Do4522, Oct. 13, 2005).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s performance rate received by the Defendant in his own account and paid it to his mother’s own account; (ii) the Defendant was holding the passbook such as M; (iii) the Defendant’s transfer of money to M to the Defendant’s wife account; and (iv) the Defendant’s actual use of the Defendant’s ordinary benefit; and (v) the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s ordinary benefit under the name of the Defendant’s child, all of the criminal facts of this case are recognized. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.