logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.2.3.선고 2016고정976 판결
공무상표시무효
Cases

2016 High Court Decision 976 Invalidity of Indications on Official Duties

Defendant

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

this call (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-chul (Trial)

Defense Counsel

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

February 3, 2017

Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant Eul shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

3. An order to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine plus a provisional payment.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who operates a motor vehicle dispatch agency.

The Defendant had not paid rent from August 2014 while he leased the first floor of the building in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon from around July 2008 to D and operated E agency.

D filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the name of the building and the rent of the building, and filed an application for compulsory execution on October 2015. On December 14, 2015, the Daejeon District Court attached 3 of the carpart, 1 of the wheelchairs, 1 of the wheelchairs-man, 1 of the wheelchairs-man, 1 of the wheelchairs-man, 24 vehicles, and 24 of the goods.

Nevertheless, on December 2, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily divided the above goods seized by the above E agency, thereby impairing or concealing the indication of compulsory measures or impairing the utility thereof by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint, an authentic copy of the judgment (2014Gadan231139), a report on attachment of corporeal movables (2015No. 5079) and a report on impossibility of physical inspection (2015No. 5079)

1. A real estate lease contract;

[Defendant asserts that he would have been punished when he disposes of seized goods. However, even though his faith was unaware of the violation of the law, it is merely a simple legal site unless the establishment of the crime could not depend on the establishment of the crime. In addition, according to the evidence of the judgment, the Defendant appears to have been aware that the Defendant would be subject to punishment when he damages, conceals, or disposes of the seized goods by means of a public notice, a notice, etc. in the course of attachment execution. The Defendant’s above assertion is rejected).

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 140(1)(b) of the Criminal Act, selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

There are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant disposed of the seized goods at the time of the execution of attachment, and the extent of infringing the function of indicating the part of the compulsory disposition, that there is a number of criminal punishment against the Defendant several times, that the Defendant has not yet been able to repay the execution claim. However, the Defendant appears to have been unable to normally operate his/her business due to a fire at the workplace that occurred around April 27, 2014, and in such circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been subject to the enforcement of attachment from the lessor, and the Defendant eventually failed in his/her business and supported his/her spouse and children under difficult circumstances, such as the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her business, and support for his/her aged spouse and children under difficult circumstances. Comprehensively taking into account such circumstances and other circumstances, the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relations, environment, occupation, etc., and the amount of fine imposed by the court and each court similar to this case, shall be determined as the order.

Judges

Judges senior promotion

arrow