2013 Highest 1129

1. A (*************************) and company members.

Residence

Reference domicile

2. B (************************) and note.

Residence

Reference domicile

Maximum (Public Prosecutions) and Min Il (Public Trial)

Law Firm ○○ (For the Defendants)

Attorney OOO in charge

December 2, 2013

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants is suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the Defendants to provide community service for 80 hours each time.

Criminal History Office

On July 3, 2009, Kim 00, who was the former wife against Defendant A, filed a lawsuit claiming division of property around July 3, 2009, and filed a provisional attachment registration as to the consolation money and division of property against the above Defendant Kim 000,000 apartment units owned by the above Defendant, and on November 10, 201, the judgment of the first instance was sentenced to the payment of consolation money of KRW 30,000,000, and property division amount of KRW 450,000,000, and interest amount of KRW 450,000,000. On July 7, 201, the Seoul High Court rendered a final judgment dismissing Defendant A’s appeal, and around August 24, 2011, it was notified that the above Defendant’s property will have been subject to compulsory execution as to KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 450,000,00.

As above, the Defendants conspired with the intent to escape from compulsory execution with the knowledge of the risk of being subject to compulsory execution, and the fact is, despite the fact that Defendant A did not have any obligation to borrow money against Defendant B.

7. Around July 25, 201, the obligation for false loans worth KRW 150 million, the obligation for false loans worth KRW 250 million around July 26, 201, the obligation for false loans worth KRW 150 million around August 2, 201, and the obligation for false loans worth KRW 550 million in total, bears the obligation for false loans worth KRW 150 million around August 2, 201, and subsequently, on August 11, 2011, the obligation for false loans worth KRW 150 million owned by Defendant A with the intent to escape compulsory execution by establishing a right to collateral security amount of KRW 000,000,000,000, a maximum debt amount of KRW 400,000,000, which is KRW 100,000,000 as the maximum debt amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Witness Kim 00,* * Each legal statement in *

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Determination as to the defense counsel's assertion of the complaint, B copy of passbook, and specification of transactions

The defense counsel held that around June 25, 201, Defendant A acquired C’s right to share a Moroc local restaurant in Korea from Defendant C at around KRW 550 million, and that around that time, Defendant B borrowed a total of KRW 550 million from Defendant B on several occasions, thereby establishing a collateral security right on the above apartment, and the Defendants did not bear any false obligation.

In light of the aforementioned evidence, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendants presented financial data transferred KRW 250 million on July 25, 201, and KRW 100 million on the date of borrowing KRW 550 million from Defendant B; (b) the Defendants presented financial data received KRW 250 million on July 26, 201; (c) the said money was withdrawn on the same day or in cash and returned to Defendant B; (b) the Defendants received the above restaurant share right from Defendant B on June 25, 201, and paid the acquisition price to Defendant B on the basis of an agreement to pay KRW 100 million to Defendant B, who is the obligee of the above restaurant; (d) the Defendants’ assertion that the above money was returned to Defendant B on the basis of the above agreement to transfer KRW 1050 million; (e) the Defendants’ claim that KRW 500 million on the debt of Defendant B, including the above 105 billion loan agreement, should not be asserted.

8. Money transactions that cannot be deemed to have existed, such as receiving approximately KRW 130 million from the date of loan until August 2, 201, where it was difficult to view that there was an agreement on settlement of accounts by receiving approximately KRW 130 million from the date of loan. Moreover, on August 2, 2011, the Defendants cited as the ground of loan, KRW 100 million from July 27, 2011 to August 2, 2011, used money transactions as the money transferred by C to Defendant B (in the investigation record 89 pages) and ④ even according to the Defendant’s statement, even if the above restaurant was not opened, the Defendants’ assertion that there was a real obligation or obligation of the defense counsel cannot be viewed as having been asserted in light of the empirical rule, such as Defendant A’s financial status at the time, the relationship between Defendant A and Defendant C, and so on.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 327 and 30 of the Criminal Code, the choice of imprisonment

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (wholly agreed with creditors and considering all circumstances, such as the fact that there is no particular criminal record)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

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

Judges Lee Dong-sik