logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.05.23 2014고단1128
강제집행면탈
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around August 20, 2012, around August 20, 2012, at the time of being placed in a situation where enforcement from the victim would be forced due to provisional seizure of the dividend claim against the Republic of Korea by the victim D, A conspired with the defendant B to bear the false obligation against the defendant B with the intent to escape this.

On October 19, 2012, the Defendants, having completed the F Office of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu Office No. 102, prepared a notarial deed of promissory notes stating compulsory execution acceptance words with respect to promissory notes stating “The face value amount of 280,00,000, issuer A, and payee B” as if Defendant A had a debt to Defendant B.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit a false debt in order to escape compulsory execution, thereby damaging the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the authentic deed;

1. The defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 327 and 30 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts under Articles 327 and 30 of the Criminal Code as to the crime of this case were denied by the investigative agency, and subsequently led to confession from this court. The defendants made false notarial deeds up to KRW 280 million, and attempted to receive false dividends based on the notarial deeds, thereby disturbing judicial order. As a result, the victims did not incur direct property damage, such as receiving dividends due to the crime of this case. However, this circumstance seems to be due to the victim's efforts, such as actively asserting that the notarial deed of this case is false and receiving a favorable judgment, it is difficult to evaluate the defendants as favorable grounds for sentencing against the defendants. The defendants did not reach an agreement with the victim. The victims were punished by the defendants in this court.

arrow