Main Issues
The elements of evasion of compulsory execution
Summary of Judgment
For the establishment of a crime of evading compulsory execution, the intention of an actor's subjective compulsory execution shall appear in an imminent situation where compulsory execution is objectively conducted.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 327 of the Criminal Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 74Do1798 Delivered on October 8, 1974
Escopics
Defendant
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor
original decision
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No2964 delivered on January 12, 200
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to establish the crime of evading compulsory execution, it is necessary to say that the intention of the actor's subjective compulsory execution should appear in an imminent situation where compulsory execution is objectively forced, and this is the opinion of the precedent that is followed by the party members.
The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the court below did not prove that the defendant had committed a crime under the objective condition that he would be subject to compulsory execution, and that the defendant would not have been subject to compulsory execution, since he would have been able to take the real estate owned by the defendant in the event that the defendant would have been able to take the provisional registration, and that he had been subject to the payment of promissory notes before the due date of the payment of the promissory notes issued by the defendant and had been in default, and that the defendant received a demand for payment of obligations, such as a demand for payment of the amount of the promissory notes from the holder of the promissory notes, or that the creditor was prepared to take the legal procedure against the defendant.
On the contrary, the argument that the risk of compulsory execution should be recognized as existing, is not consistent with the original judgment, and it is not the way to be employed.
The issue is without merit and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)