강제집행면탈
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal ① As the substantial operator of the corporation E, Defendant B was unable to dismiss the enemy due to cumulative personnel, corporate tax burden, etc., after consultation with the accounting office and office, closed the business of the corporation, and succeeded to the business of the corporation in the same name as the individual after the closure of the business of the corporation, and did not intend or intend to escape compulsory execution by the victim. ② Defendant A was a representative in the name of the corporation E as the representative in the name of the corporation E, and was not involved in the crime of this case. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, on the ground that there was no omission in the operation of the corporation.
Judgment
A. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Civil Procedure Act is a dangerous crime and is in an objective condition that is practically likely to be subject to compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition under the Civil Procedure Act. In other words, it is established that there is a risk of undermining creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring property or bearing false debts for the purpose of evading subjective compulsory execution in the state where creditors are showing the attitude to institute or institute a lawsuit for preservation. It does not necessarily mean that the result of undermining creditors is caused or an offender is not committed with any benefit (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3184, Jun. 26, 2008, etc.). The "discidion of property" in the crime of evading compulsory execution refers to the act that causes difficulty or difficulty in discovering the discovery of property against a person executing compulsory execution, including cases where the location of property is unknown, and where the Defendants’ ownership is not clear in collusion with the court below’s determination based on the evidence duly adopted by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3837.