beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged and the victim F are as follows: (a) the Defendant was aware of the victim’s cosmetics visiting sale; (b) the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the injured party around January 15, 2003; (c) KRW 40 million around February 17, 2003; (d) KRW 130 million around November 6, 2003; and (e) borrowed KRW 190 million from the injured party; and (e) repaid KRW 50 million among them.
From August 2005, the Defendant had received demand from the injured party to pay the above borrowed money continuously and had a full payment with respect to it. On August 3, 2011, the Defendant got insurance money as his husband died due to a traffic accident. On August 3, 2011, the Defendant had attempted to avoid compulsory execution by transferring the insurance money to the friendly G bank account that he manages and uses the insurance money to the new bank account of the victimized party.
Accordingly, on October 5, 201, the Defendant transferred KRW 60,440,000 of the insurance money received from the Alanz to his Saemaul Savings Depository account to the said new bank account around October 6, 2011. On October 12, 2011, the Defendant transferred KRW 71,650,000 of the insurance money received from the Samsung Fire to the said new bank account in G on the same day. On November 9, 2011, the Defendant transferred KRW 183,920,000 of the insurance money received from his Saemaul Savings Depository account from the Alanz to its new bank account around November 15, 201.
Accordingly, in order to escape compulsory execution, the defendant concealed or falsely transferred the above insurance money to the creditor, thereby damaging the victim as the creditor.
B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows, i.e., the Defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.