beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The transfer of ownership to the Defendant of the two rocketing passenger cars owned by D (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) a summary of the grounds for appeal (deficiencies or misunderstanding of legal principles) is intended to recover KRW 51 million, which the Defendant held against D, or was made according to a partnership agreement with L, which was the representative director of D.
In addition, by closing the defendant's business and establishing a new personal business entity called F, the defendant did not transfer the expectation right to make a continuous transaction with D's transaction with D's customers, and F did not have any fact that the defendant has made a transaction with D's existing business partners until now.
Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In the crime of evading compulsory execution, false transfer means the alteration of the ownership name of the property by taking the form of transfer on the surface despite the absence of actual intention of transfer, and the concealment means that a person who executes compulsory execution makes it impossible or difficult to discover the debtor's property. In the event that there is a risk of undermining the creditor due to such an act, the crime of evading compulsory execution is established, and the actual consequence is that undermining the creditor, the crime of evading compulsory execution is established, but the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4759 delivered on November 27, 2001, etc.). B.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the Defendant was a real representative of D; ② the Defendant was notified of the assignment of claims from G around May 25, 2012 that “H and I acquired claims against D” and the ownership of the instant vehicle owned by D around June 15, 2012.