[1] Whether “property” which is the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution includes “property” (affirmative with qualification)

[2] In a case where Gap, as Eul's creditor, was charged with the provisional seizure of part of the dividend claim to be paid to Eul in the auction case of Eul's real estate owned by Byung, but the defendant, Byung, Eul's heir et al. conspired with Byung to prepare a false confirmation letter of debt completion and submit it to the court as if Eul's debt was fully paid, the case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the defendant's evasion of compulsory execution

[1] The property which is the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution refers to the property of the debtor which can be considered as the object of compulsory execution or preservative measure under the Civil Execution Act by the creditor among the property of the debtor. Even in the future right, if the debtor and the third debtor are sufficiently indicated or determined legal relations exist, it shall be deemed as the property

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the crime of evading compulsory execution against the defendant on the ground that Eul's heir's claim filed an objection against Eul's heir, etc. by pretending that Eul's claim against Eul's heir, etc. is an object of the crime of evading compulsory execution, and that Eul's claim against Eul's heir, etc. was filed a lawsuit of demurrer and causing the suspension of compulsory execution and the cancellation of auction based on the judgment, in case where Eul's heir et al. conspired after Eul's death, Eul's heir et al. to prepare a false confirmation letter of debt repayment against Byung, and submitted it to the court as if Eul's debt was fully satisfied, Eul's claim against Eul's heir, etc., and the act of causing the suspension of compulsory execution and the cancellation of auction constitutes "property concealment" by means of identifying ownership relation.

[1] Article 327 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 30 and 327 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4759 Decided November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 231) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8721 Decided September 11, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1401) Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2168 Decided May 14, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 905)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong Jin-jin

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011No228 Decided April 29, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is established when a creditor is harmed by concealing, destroying or destroying property, falsely transferring property, or bearing false debts with a specific risk to be subject to compulsory execution. Here, the property which is the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution refers to the debtor's property that can be subject to compulsory execution or preservative measures under the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8721, Sept. 11, 2008). Even in future rights, if the debtor and the third debtor are sufficiently indicated or determined legal relations exist between the debtor and the third debtor, it shall be deemed that even if the debtor's future claims are sufficiently indicated or determined, the crime of evading compulsory execution constitutes property. In addition, in the crime of evading compulsory execution, the term "a concealment of property" refers to the impossibility or difficulty of identifying the debtor's property, and it includes not only cases where the location of property is unknown but also cases where ownership is unknown (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3387, Oct. 9, 2003).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and evidence employed by the court below, Co-defendant 1 was the owner of the auction property of this case; Co-defendant 1's husband 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 4's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-3's non-indicted 1'

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the dividend payment claim to be distributed in the auction procedure of this case by Co-defendant 1 and four others constitutes property which is the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution, and the defendant et al. pretended as Co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance as if the claim against Co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance was fully satisfied, and filing a lawsuit of objection against Co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance and four others, and resulting in the suspension of compulsory execution and the revocation of auction based on the judgment, constitutes “the concealment of

In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the Defendant guilty of evading compulsory execution among the facts charged in the instant case, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or of misapprehending the legal principles on the crime

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)