(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.17 2018고단2591

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.17 2018고단2591

민사집행법위반

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 19, 2017, the Defendant appeared at the date of specification of the open property in Busan District Court No. 307, which was located at the Busan District Court No. 307, Jun. 19, 2017, with respect to the case of filing a claim for specification of the property against the Defendant by the obligee B ( Busan District Court No. 2017Kao, 326, Busan District Court No. 2017), and on fact, he/she made and submitted a false list of property by omitting this fact without entering it in the above list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (statement C of a witness);

1. Article 68(9) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 68 of the same Act concerning facts constituting a crime, the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the provisional payment order is merely the fact that the flexibility of this case is not written as it has no property value, and thus, it does not constitute a crime.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the property specification procedure under the Civil Execution Act, all properties subject to compulsory execution shall be stated in the list of properties to be submitted by the debtor to the court, regardless of whether there is any substantial value (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153, Nov. 29, 2007). Even if considering the grounds alleged by the defendant, there is justifiable reason to determine whether the defendant is subject to independent entry in the list of properties.

It is difficult to view the above argument, and we cannot accept it.

The reason for sentencing lies in somewhat considering the circumstances in which the defendant did not enter the flexibility of this case in the property list, the fact that the property value of the flexibility of this case seems to be low, and the defendant appears to have made a relatively faithful statement on other property, and in addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and after the crime.

참조조문

-형법 제69조 제2항

-형법 제70조 제1항

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도8153 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노2713

-춘천지방법원 2017.05.16 2016고정480

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2017.01.06 2016고정338

-대구지방법원 2017.05.31 2017고정798

-전주지방법원 2018.04.06 2017고단2173