A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant did not pay capital gains tax of KRW 1,889,864,900 due to the transfer of 6 real estate, Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and 3 other real estate, until July 31, 2005.

No taxpayer shall evade or conceal property for the purpose of evading or evading the disposition on default.

Nevertheless, on August 18, 2010, the Defendant prepared a false bond transfer and takeover contract to which the Defendant transferred the claim amounting to KRW 303,547,992 on the Dong General Market Co., Ltd. to E with a view to evading the execution of disposition on default at the Defendant’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and entered into a false contract and concealed assets by notifying the same to Dong General Market Co., Ltd.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;

1. The accusation and attached details of arrears, matters concerning the accused's family members, relevant decisions, copies of each contract for transfer and takeover of bonds, and copies of notification of transfer of claims;

1. Judgment on the assertion by each accused and defense counsel of the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap12687), the second instance (Seoul High Court 201Na101089) and the Supreme Court (2012Da11731)

1. The argument that the Defendant transferred the instant claim to Defendant wife was aimed at using the wife’s property as the Defendant’s operating fund for the Defendant’s operating fund.

The claim of this case had no real property value because the debtor filed a petition for bankruptcy at the time of the assignment of claims.

The defendant had no intention to evade the disposition on default.

2. There was no evidence to prove that the Defendant used the property owned by the Defendant for the Defendant’s operating fund, and even if so, the Defendant used the property owned by the Defendant for the Defendant’s operating fund for the Defendant’s operating fund, and there was a mind for the wife to be above the Defendant when transferring the instant claim.