Defendant 1 and one other

Kim Jin-nam (Court Prosecution), Kim Spot (Court Trial)

Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant 2 was the representative director of Nonindicted Co. 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 1”), and Defendant 1 was the former auditor of Nonindicted Co. 1 as Defendant 2’s children;

In the lawsuit claiming a check payment against Nonindicted Company 1 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004Kadan10261) that was filed by Nonindicted Company 3 against Nonindicted Company 1, the judgment ordering Nonindicted Company 3 to pay KRW 20,500,000 and delay damages therefor. Nonindicted Company 4 filed a lawsuit claiming a contract payment against Nonindicted Company 1 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005Gahap1254), which was filed by Nonindicted Company 4 (Seoul Western District Court 2005Gahap1254) to pay damages for delay of KRW 98,79,275 and 78,517,500 among them. However, Nonindicted Company 5 did not pay damages to Nonindicted Company 1. The Defendants conspired with Nonindicted Company 3 and 4 for the purpose of evading the compulsory execution of Nonindicted Company 5, etc., and changed the property from Nonindicted Company 1 in the name of Nonindicted Company 2, 201 in the name of Nonindicted Company 10 and 14 in the name of Nonindicted Company 10.

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

1. Statement of the police statement against Nonindicted 3 and 5

1. A copy of each written judgment and each written appeal;

1. A certified copy of the register, a copy of the transfer/acquisition agreement, and a copy of the performance statement;

1. Entrustment of fact-finding (Preparation by the head of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City) and document delivery;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime: Articles 327 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

The Defendants changed the name of the owner of the building of the school-based ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to Nonindicted Co. 2 (hereinafter referred to as Nonindicted Co. 2) in the name of the owner of the instant building was changed to an inevitable change due to the lack of the capacity to complete the instant building, and it was not changed for property concealment.

In light of the aforementioned part of the judgment as follows in the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013Gahap485 Decided November 29, 2013, and the part acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the witness Nonindicted 7 was unable to accurately memory Defendant 2 and his employee’s name. While carrying out the instant business, he did not have any security on Nonindicted 7’s own property, and Nonindicted 2’s acceptance of Nonindicted Company 2 was not done by himself, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ change in the contents of the lawsuit.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-indicted 1's legal principle as to the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 2's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 7's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 7's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 4's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 2's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 7's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 2's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 1's disposal of new buildings and the non-indicted 3's disposal of new buildings.

From the beginning of 2000, the Defendants committed a crime of evading compulsory execution by failing to pay back the debt incurred in the construction of the building in question, and again committed a crime of evading compulsory execution by a large number of creditors. In light of the above, the Defendants’ sentence is inevitable.

However, as seen above, the judgment of the first instance court rendered that the name in the name of Nonindicted Co. 2 in the name of Nonindicted Co. 1 should be changed to Nonindicted Co. 1 as the case 2013Gahap485, and that the name should be changed to that of Nonindicted Co. 2 (in the course of the trial of appeal), and that the Defendants did not have the same criminal record, and all circumstances that conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment

Judge Lee Jin-hee