logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.09 2016고단6024
강제집행면탈
Text

1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months;

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B On February 5, 2015, the Busan District Court was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution due to fraud, etc. on July 23, 2015.

Defendant

A The representative of E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) and Defendant B, while collecting scrap metal from E, have lent KRW 30 million to Defendant A around March 2009.

The victim U.S. Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Steel Co., Ltd.") supplied the raw materials of steel to E and received KRW 90,532,337 for goods, thereby changing its trade name to the "PS Co., Ltd." on August 13, 2013.

On July 5, 2013, the Busan District Court applied for provisional attachment of claims to KRW 90,532,337, out of the claims for the purchase of goods held by Daewoo bus (hereinafter referred to as "Dasan bus") and received a decision of provisional attachment of claims from the above court on July 5, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "decision of provisional attachment of claims in this case").

However, in June 2013, Defendant A did not pay KRW 90,532,337 to the injured creditor company for the payment of the price of the goods, and Defendant A did not pay the price of the goods to other trading companies. In addition, Defendant A had the intention to falsely transfer KRW 150,000,000 to Defendant B, for the purpose of avoiding the situation where E is likely to be subject to compulsory execution from the injured creditor company due to the failure to pay the price of the goods to other trading companies.

On June 19, 2013, prior to the delivery of the original copy of the instant provisional attachment decision to the treatment bus, the Defendants conspired to prepare a loan certificate of KRW 100 million and assumed a false obligation by providing it, even though E did not borrow KRW 100 million from Defendant B at the E office (F in Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si) around June 19, 2013, and notified the Defendant of the contract for the transfer of the claim as if they were transferred to the Defendant B for the repayment of KRW 100 million.

arrow