(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014고정1758

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014고정1758

공무상표시무효

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, the following facts charged shall be organized and criminal facts shall be recognized:

Around January 3, 2014, the Defendant attached 23 items appraised by the Defendant, such as TV and kimchi air conditioners, which are owned by the Defendant and indicated the attachment, pursuant to the executory decision of the 2009Gahap6995 (No. 2009Gahap695) with the delegation of the enforcement of the creditor D, and attached the items equivalent to 7,211,800 won among the items assessed by the Defendant, such as TV and kimchi air conditioners, which were owned by the Defendant. However, even if the Defendant attached the attached items, the Defendant would have impaired the utility of the attachment indication performed by the public official from January 2, 2014 to March 2014 by using 122 of the annual coal among the seized items as a public official’s duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding F;

1. Application of statutes to a report on attachment of corporeal movables and a report on inspection of seized objects;

1. Relevant Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that (i) the execution of seizure of the instant tobacco, which is an object owned by the Defendant, because the instant tobacco was not owned by the Defendant, but owned by the Defendant, is unlawful; and (ii) the instant tobacco constitutes “a fuel for two months required for the living of the debtor, etc.,” as stipulated in Article 195 Subparag. 2 of the Civil Execution Act, and thus, the execution of seizure of the instant tobacco constitutes an object subject to prohibition of entry, and thus is also unlawful. Thus, even if the Defendant used Chapter 122 of the instant tobacco, it does not constitute a crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty.

2. Determination

A. (1) Compulsory execution against the corporeal movables determined as to the assertion shall be occupied by the debtor.

참조조문

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2019.09.26 2019고정1120

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014고정2591

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2015.07.15 2015고정102

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.24 2014고단4004

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014고정809