beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant had operated “G” located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu under his/her name from February 2002, and on April 4, 2012, the victim H filed a lawsuit against the Defendant and E with the Seoul Northern District Court on April 4, 2012, and appealed on December 27, 201 of the same year in entirety against the Defendant, and on January 21, 2013, the entire decision against the Defendant was rendered against the Defendant, and the same year.
5. 13. The Seoul High Court received a decision to recommend reconciliation from the effect that “The victim shall pay KRW 480,000,000 to the victim, and the defendant shall pay KRW 260,000,000 out of the above money jointly and severally with E.”
6. 5. Finality has been established.
In order to escape compulsory execution, the defendant did not transfer the above restaurant to I, and notwithstanding the fact that he did not have assigned it to I.
1. Around 17.17. Around the 18th floor management office in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu changed the lessee of the above restaurant lease contract from E to I, and around the 18th day of the same month, the Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the name of the business operator and the name of the cash register of the above restaurant from E to I, thereby damaging the creditor by concealing the business property and the lease deposit of the above restaurant.
2. In the crime of evading compulsory execution as stipulated in Article 327 of the Criminal Act, the term “covering property” means to make a person executing compulsory execution impossible or difficult to discover the property. It includes not only the case where the location of the property is unknown, but also the case where the ownership of the property is unclear. However, solely on the fact that the debtor changes his/her business registration registered in the name of a third party and another third party’s name, it cannot be readily concluded that the change causes the risk of causing damage to the creditor by making the creditor know about the ownership of corporeal movables in the place of business more clearly than before.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2732 Decided June 12, 2014). They return to the instant case and health zone.