logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.07.10 2013노6312
강제집행면탈
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant merely carried out business activities under the direction and supervision of P by the president of a medical corporation E (hereinafter “E”), and was not in a position to manage the finance and administration of the E hospital operated by the said foundation, and thus, the Defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of evading compulsory execution of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “first argument”). (b)

The money transferred from the deposit account in the name of the defendant to the deposit account in the name of the defendant as shown in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court below is transferred to the deposit account in the name of the above foundation and used as the expense of the E hospital. F was aware of this fact in advance and was paid the price for the supply of medicines in the above manner. In addition, F could sufficiently recover its claim through preservative measures, compulsory execution, etc. on the assets of the above foundation. Thus, F cannot be deemed to have harmed the F by transferring the funds of the above foundation to the deposit account in the name of the defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “second assertion”). (c)

At the time of transferring the money to the deposit account in the name of the defendant in the name of E, the defendant did not have any intention or intention to evade the F's compulsory execution.

Section 3. The third argument

D. The money transferred to the deposit account in the name of the defendant is " Q." as an incorporated corporation Q.

The act of borrowing money from the defendant to the deposit account in the name of the defendant was an inevitable measure to manage the borrowed money.

'The fourth argument' is 'the fourth argument'.

2. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below.

A. G, the representative director of which is F, has supplied medicines to E hospitals operated by E from March 5, 2007 to June 5, 2011.

B. E had experienced difficulties in operating the E Hospital from August 2008, and Q grants a loan to the said Foundation.

arrow