According to the records, in the Seoul High Court (No. 2002No. 1963) on March 12, 2003, when the defendant did not pay the above fine of 4 years of suspension of execution, fine of 2,038,006,48 won and the above fine of 3,000 won in prison for the period of converting 1 day into the old prison for the period of 4 years of suspension of execution, fine of 2,000,000 won into the old prison, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 20 of the same year. Since the defendant did not pay the above fine, the prosecutor of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office received a fine of 2003 and 37168 under an executory collection order of Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office (No. 2003 and 37168, Nov. 18, 2005) from the defendant's National Agricultural Cooperative Federation ( No. 200555, No. 268, Feb. 28, 20016).

2. Judgment on the petitioner's assertion

A. Applicant's assertion

The applicant: (1) The Defendant’s deposit account opened on May 9, 200 and deposited 10,000 won until May 8, 2003 without a three-year contract transaction period; and (2) five years have passed since the date of the above transaction without a single transaction, or without a single transaction more than once after the date of the above transaction, and the above deposit account is treated as the profits of the Agricultural Cooperatives; (3) the above bond seizure and collection order is not against the Defendant’s property, and thus, it is not effective, but against the Defendant’s intention, the above bond seizure and collection order is paid to the prosecution. Thus, it cannot be deemed as commencing compulsory disposition, which is the cause of interruption of prescription under Article 80 of the Criminal Act, which is close to the Defendant’s above bond seizure and collection order, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the interruption of prescription, which is the cause of a fine under Article 176 of the Civil Execution Act, and thus, it does not affect the interruption of prescription period due to the above act of a fine under Article 1780 of the Civil Execution Act.

B. Determination

According to Article 80 of the Criminal Act, the period of prescription in a fine shall be interrupted by commencing a compulsory disposition. Here, where a fine is executed by means of compulsory execution against a claim, the interruption of prescription shall take effect by deeming that an execution which is a compulsory disposition has commenced at the time of an application for seizure order by a public prosecutor in accordance with the collection order in cases where a fine is executed by means of compulsory execution against a claim, and the interruption of prescription shall take effect at that time, considering that there is a commencement of an execution which is a compulsory disposition in order to take effect. An execution act does not have been completed or successful, and it does not require a notification of the commencement of an execution act to a convicted prisoner. Therefore, even if an application for seizure against a claim presumed as a property of the accused was filed,

According to the above facts, the execution of detention in a workhouse based on the above fine against the defendant was made on May 6, 2008, when three years have passed from March 2003 when the above fine became final and conclusive. However, in light of the above legal principles, it can be deemed that a compulsory disposition has been initiated upon application of the above order of collection by the public prosecutor for the execution of a fine established in accordance with the above order of seizure and collection for the execution of a fine. Thus, the statute of limitations on the above fine should be suspended. As alleged by the applicant, the above seized claim is extinguished due to the expiration of the contract period or the expiration of the commercial statute of limitations, or even if the above seized claim is not executed because there is no surplus in addition to the execution cost, even if it falls under the case where the above seized claim is not executed due to the expiration of the contract period or the completion of the commercial statute of limitations, the interruption of prescription period already occurred shall not become null and void. Accordingly, since the three years have elapsed prior to the execution of the claim by the public prosecutor on May 6, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)