logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.09.30 2016고정934
강제집행면탈
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged was sentenced to the judgment of the court below that “The Defendants shall pay F 36,862,000 won and its interest to F 36,862,000 won jointly and severally with E in the case of damages compensation in which Defendant A used the corporate bank account in the name of Defendant A as well as the vehicle payment account in D as the vehicle payment account in the name of Defendant B.”

From the end of June 2015, the Defendants solicited the victim FF to attach the Defendants’ property in accordance with the outcome of the said lawsuit and the pertinent lawsuit, and conspired to change the vehicle payment account by fear that the said account will be seized. On July 9, 2015, the deposited account of the above “C” was changed from the corporate bank account (Account Number G) in the name of the Defendant to the one bank account (Account Number I) in the name of H, and around July 24, 2015, the deposited account of the above “D” was changed from the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant B to the account of the company bank (Account Number J) in the name of the Defendant, and received the vehicle sales proceeds, etc. from that time to the changed account from the customer and the individual.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal property for the purpose of avoiding compulsory execution, thereby damaging the obligee.

2. We examine the judgment. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is mainly the protection of the obligee’s rights. Thus, the obligee’s rights, namely, the existence of a claim, which is the basis of compulsory execution, are the elements for the establishment of the crime of evading compulsory execution. Therefore, if the existence of a claim is not recognized, the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 8Do48, Apr. 12, 198). According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Incheon District Court’s 2015 Gohap 2290 damages case, “The Defendants pay F 36,862,00 won and interest thereon jointly and severally with E.”

arrow