The defendant is innocent.

1. On August 11, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Gahap324, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2011Gahap324, Defendant C and the Defendant, “The Defendant shall pay to each Plaintiff KRW 218,891,639 and interest thereon” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B around October 28, 2011, the Suwon District Court rendered the instant judgment as the executive title, and collected KRW 3,468,055 from the above post office account around November 18, 201, with respect to the post office account (D) in the name of the defendant, for which the Defendant’s benefits are deposited, from the post office account in the name of the defendant.

Since then, around November 24, 2011, the Defendant newly opened the Jeju Bank Account (E) under the name of the Defendant, which does not fall under B’s seizure and collection order, and made the Defendant’s benefits deposited into the said Jeju Bank Account, not the said post office account. On December 15, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 1,966,101 as benefits from the said Jeju Bank Account.

In order to avoid compulsory execution of B over a total of 17 occasions, such as the statement in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet, the Defendant concealed an amount equivalent to KRW 46,202,96 in total by having an account, such as Jeju Bank, Daegu Bank, NFFFC, Busan Bank, etc., opened a new account and pay in the name of the Defendant.

2. The term “harbor property” in the crime of evading compulsory execution as stipulated in Article 327 of the Criminal Act means that a person who executes compulsory execution is unable or difficult to discover the property, including the case where the location of the property is unknown, and the case where the ownership of the property is not clear;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3387 delivered on October 9, 2003, etc.). Examining the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s “property” subject to the original compulsory execution is the deposit claim held by the Defendant against a specific financial institution (post office). However, the Defendant intended to avoid the effect of the seizure and collection order.