The case holding that a transfer of property has been made in an objective condition where the purpose of evading compulsory execution can be realized in reality;

In a case where the family members of Gap (A) and Eul (B) who died on the vehicle and suffered a traffic accident, knew that the said accident was the driver's negligence of Eul (B), and then filed an investigation into the situation of the case with the investigative agency, and the family members of Eul (B) file an application for the investigation into the situation of the case, and if the family members of Eul (B) file another petition under the name of the defendant (B) who is his/her mother, the family members of Eul (A) did not carry out the above medical expense request, it is reasonable to deem that the situation at that time was the objective situation in which the purpose of evading compulsory execution could have been realized.

Article 327 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No40 delivered on June 21, 1978

The part of the original judgment on the evasion of compulsory execution shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

The prosecutor's remaining appeals are dismissed.

1. First of all, the prosecutor's grounds of appeal concerning the evasion of compulsory execution are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant (the deceased non-indicted 1's birth) was owned by the deceased non-indicted 1 on September 20, 1976, and that the sales contract was concluded with 150 p.m. factories of 438 p. 1 to 438 p.m., Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that it was completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant 10.4 p.m. and that the father Non-indicted 1, who was the victim's father, suffered from a traffic accident, was 600,000 won for the above Gangseo-day medical expenses, and the remaining money was 20,000,000 won, and that the above accident was no more than 10,000 p.m. at the time of death, and that the above accident was no more than 15,000 p.m.'s fault on the premise that the above accident was no more than 15,000 p.m.

However, at the end of August, 1976, the victim of the above accident, which was acknowledged by the court below, known that the above accident was caused by the deceased non-indicted 1's negligence in driving, around the end of 1976, which was the transfer of the registration of ownership transfer for the above real estate, and on the part of the bereaved family in the record, the court below sought payment of the above medical expenses on the ground that the above accident was caused by the deceased non-indicted 1's driver's negligence in driving on the deceased non-indicted 1, but the deceased non-indicted 1's bereaved family member rejected the above accident and did not comply with the above request, and according to the evidence adopted by the court below, it can be seen that the above accident was caused by the deceased non-indicted 1's negligence in driving on the above real estate, and if it is reasonable to view that the above accident was executed for the purpose of compulsory execution at the time of the conclusion of the above sale contract, it would be reasonable to view that the above situation was that the defendant would not have been executed.

If so, the accident at the time was not recognized as an accident of the deceased non-indicted 1, and it cannot be deemed that there was an objective situation where there was a risk of being subject to compulsory execution in reality because it did not have been prepared to take legal procedures against the above deceased non-indicted 1, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the establishment of the crime of evading compulsory execution is denied. Ultimately, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect of illegality in which the reason for rejecting the charge is not clearly stated, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss the appeal that appears to include the purpose of

2. We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal on the fraudulent entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed and its exercise.

The judgment of the court below is consistent with the records, and the purport of the judgment of the court below is that when the above real estate owned by the deceased non-indicted 1 was registered for the transfer of ownership in the defendant's future, the non-indicted 2, who is the wife of the above deceased non-indicted 1, was agreed on the registration of transfer of ownership as the legal representative of the deceased's heir and the remaining inheritors, and since the registration of transfer of ownership was caused by the above agreement, the defendant's registration of transfer of ownership cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of false entry of the original copy of the notarial deed and its exercise. Thus, the above judgment of the court below can be justified, and there is no misapprehension

3. Therefore, among the prosecutor's appeal, the part concerning the crime of evading enforcement among the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and there is no reason to do so, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)