Defendant

Defendant

Dried bars

Attorney Jeong-jin

Incheon District Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 3169, 4899 (Consolidated) Decided October 17, 2008

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act on February 1, 2008, in light of the fact that the defendant's passive omission of inherited property cannot be seen as a "harbor" in the crime of fraud bankruptcy, that the situation at the time was not imminent to commence bankruptcy proceedings, and that the non-indicted 1, the defendant's father at the time of his death, agreed to inherit the land and the house of this case at the time of his death, and that the defendant did not agree to inherit on February 1, 2008.

2. Determination

A. The crime of fraud bankruptcy under Article 366 subparagraph 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act refers to an act of a bankrupt to conceal, destroy, or dispose of any property belonging to the bankrupt estate at a disadvantage to the creditor, regardless of whether it was before or after the declaration of bankruptcy, or to harm the creditor. Here, the term "cidation" refers to an act of a creditor or bankruptcy trustee, which makes it impossible or difficult to detect the property. It also refers to an act of a creditor or bankruptcy trustee to transfer property at a place and make his/her whereabouts unknown, and also concealment of property ownership unknown. The time of the act constitutes concealment. However, since the crime of fraud bankruptcy is a provision for protecting the interests of all creditors, the objective situation that may harm the interests of all creditors at the time of the act must be the situation where the total creditor is excessive or insolvent. In order to constitute the crime of fraud bankruptcy, the perception of the act must be the subjective element of the act. In addition, to recognize the danger to the commencement of bankruptcy, the intention to make another person's profit or to harm the creditor's subjective objective perception or objective element.

B. On September 14, 203, the Defendant: (a) was unable to easily believe that Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 3’s statement at the time Nonindicted Party 1 died; (b) Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 3 did not appear to have agreed on inheritance at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s death; (c) based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; and (d) Nonindicted Party 3’s statement at the time of Nonindicted Party 1’s death; (c) Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 3’s allegation that Nonindicted Party 1’s ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 6’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s property.

Ultimately, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Sung-hee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)