beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operated a sales store with the trade name “E” from around 1997, and the Defendant A served as a business employee from the above E.
Defendant
A, at the Daegu District Court on May 12, 2006, received the claim seizure and collection order from the creditor, the debtor, Defendant A and the third debtor as a financial institution such as the new bank, etc., and the defendant A was unable to receive the benefit as the deposit account of the defendant. The defendant was willing to evade compulsory execution by receiving the benefit from the transfer to another person's deposit account.
Accordingly, with a view to evading compulsory execution against Defendant A, the Defendants conspired, and the Defendant A demanded that Defendant B be unable to receive benefits from the passbook attached to the passbook, and that “the benefit would have been remitted to Defendant A as the passbook.” Defendant B accepted it from December 26, 2007 to August 25, 2009, and concealed Defendant A’s benefit equivalent to the same amount by remitting KRW 44,120,000 in total to the Daegu Bank Account (G) of F, an accounting account, from December 26, 2007 to August 25, 2009.
B. The lower court held that a crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is established when there is a risk of undermining creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring property, falsely bearing false debts, etc. for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, with the intention of objectively evading compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2476, May 29, 2008). Based on the records of the instant case and the result of the oral argument of the lower court, D filed a lawsuit claiming loans against Defendant A under the Daegu District Court 2003Gahap7849, and D filed a lawsuit claiming loans with Defendant H, jointly and severally with Defendant H, KRW 350,405,638.