강제집행면탈
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles transfer the claim for construction price that Defendant B had been actually held with respect to Defendant B in order to repay the debt borrowed to Defendant A. There is no fact that Defendant B bears the false obligation, and the Defendants did not have any intention to evade compulsory execution.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the transfer of bonds, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: fine of KRW 5 million; Defendant B: imprisonment of KRW 200,000; imprisonment of KRW 4:00) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million; Defendant B: a prison term of KRW 200,000; two years of suspended execution in April) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendants’ assertion is identical to the grounds for appeal in this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail under the title “determination on the Defendants’ and their defense counsel’ assertion” in the judgment. In line with the records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the transfer of claims, contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment
G In particular, what is the reason for transferring the claim amounting to KRW 250,000,000,000 to Defendant A in the court of original instance, even though G is about KRW 90,000,000 in the court of original instance.
Defendant A is not able to recover KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 to the question, and at that time, the appraisal of the collection is only KRW 2-30,000,000, and even at that time the collection is made.
In doing so, the statement was made to the effect that it was “,” and such statement was made by G and the Defendants at the time of Defendant.