Whether a provisional registration for preserving a right to demand a transfer of ownership on a real estate owned by a person is a crime of evasion of compulsory execution by means of a means pretending to bear any obligation to others.

Even if a provisional registration has been made for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer on the real estate owned by the defendant by means of the most important part of the defendant's liability for others, such provisional registration is only the effect of preserving the original order. Therefore, the fact that each provisional registration has been made alone cannot be said to have harmed the creditor by bearing a false obligation for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

Article 327 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Yu Sung-sung

Incheon District Court Decision 85No107 delivered on February 26, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the records of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence which seems to correspond to the facts charged in the fraud and evasion of compulsory execution in this case against the defendant on the grounds as stated in its holding is hard to believe or insufficient as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the macroficial evidence, the crime of fraud is not committed in collusion with the defendant, but it is clearly revealed that the act of deception such as the contents of the prosecution was committed by the non-indicted 1's sole criminal act, and the evasion of compulsory execution is clearly revealed, such provisional registration does not have the effect of preserving the right to claim a transfer of ownership on the real estate owned by the defendant, even if the defendant was made provisional registration for the sake of preserving the right to claim a transfer of ownership, such provisional registration does not have the effect of preserving the original priority, so the fact that each provisional registration has been made cannot be deemed to have been prejudicial to the defendant by bearing a false debt for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles due to the rules of evidence.

We cannot accept the argument that it is nothing more than misunderstanding the evidence preparation and fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)