beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the evasion of compulsory execution by mistake of facts, the Defendant had a business operator registered in his name in order to save taxes, etc., and the Defendant was required in the process, and only changed the name of the lessee under the lease contract without any intention or intention to evade compulsory execution. Such change in the name is based on the Defendant’s “voluntary” and thus does not constitute a concealment of the crime of evading compulsory execution.
With respect to the violation of the Civil Execution Act, the defendant merely stated that the name of the lease contract was changed to the name of the wife and did not have any awareness that he/she disposed of the property without compensation, and there was no intention to submit a false list of property.
B. The sentence of the lower court against the unfair defendant in sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of factual misunderstanding: (i) the time when the Defendant drafted a new lease agreement by changing the lessee into the name of the wife D, which was around February 3, 2014; (ii) the said time was not the time to conclude a re-contract due to the expiration of the said period; (iii) the date when E entered into a lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit for the lease deposit filed against the Defendant on January 21, 2014; and (iv) the date when the judgment was rendered on February 18, 2014, was changed in the name as a means to conceal the Defendant’s property, recognizing the fact that the Defendant was under litigation and the judgment was rendered immediately, and exempted enforcement therefrom.
(2) It appears that the defendant, who held a qualification as a certified broker and operated an office of an actual certified broker, was unaware of the ownership of the leased deposit claims due to a change in the name of the lessee under the lease contract, or the effect of property disposal.
(b) argument;