In cases where a fine is executed by means of compulsory execution against a claim, the time the interruption of prescription takes effect against the fine (=the time when a request for seizure of a claim is made) and whether the interruption of prescription that has already occurred where an application for seizure of a claim presumed to be a prisoner’s property was filed but impossible

In the event of the commencement of compulsory disposition (Article 80 of the Criminal Act), the period of prescription of a fine is interrupted due to the commencement of compulsory disposition (Article 80 of the Criminal Act), and in the case of the execution of a fine by means of compulsory execution against a claim, the interruption of prescription takes effect at that time by deeming that there is a commencement of an execution which is a compulsory disposition in accordance with the public prosecutor’s order to collect the claim “when an application is filed with a court” and, barring special circumstances, there is no need to notify the convicted prisoner of the commencement of an execution act, on the other hand, to the effect of the interruption of prescription. Therefore, even if an application for seizure of a claim presumed to be the property of the convicted prisoner has already been filed, the interruption of prescription

Article 80 of the Criminal Act, Articles 223 and 225 of the Civil Execution Act

Re-appellant

Seoul High Court Order 2008 early 1034 dated November 25, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

In the event of the commencement of compulsory disposition (Article 80 of the Criminal Act), the period of prescription of a fine is interrupted due to the commencement of compulsory disposition (Article 80 of the Criminal Act), and in the case of the execution of a fine by means of compulsory execution against a claim, the interruption of prescription takes effect at that time by deeming that there is a commencement of an execution which is a compulsory disposition in accordance with the public prosecutor’s order to collect the claim “when an application is filed with a court” and, barring special circumstances, there is no need to notify the convicted prisoner of the commencement of an execution act, on the other hand, to the effect of the interruption of prescription. Therefore, even if an application for seizure of a claim presumed to be the property of the convicted prisoner has already been filed, the interruption of prescription

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the Re-Appellant's assertion that there is a ground for objection under Article 489 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the disposition of detention in the workplace of this case is just, and there is no violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule affecting

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)