Defendant 1 and one other

The name of the grandchild;

Attorney Go-su et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

Defendant 1 decided to operate a game room business with Nonindicted 4 and the victim around March 2005, and invested KRW 200 million from the victim, and operated the game room from around that time. Defendant 1, around September 30, 2005, the victim provided that Defendant 1 would be liable for the money that the victim received from the bank for investment instead of the hurging of losses from the game room business. The victim consented to the withdrawal from the game room business.

On August 30, 2007, Defendant 1 filed a claim suit from the victim to the Jeju District Court, such as the agreed amount with Defendant 1 as the defendant, and became in the concrete danger of compulsory execution.

Defendant 1: (a) around August 9, 2010, at Jeju-si (hereinafter omitted); (b) Defendant 2 loaned KRW 2.50 million to Defendant 1 from May 2010 to July 22, 2010; (c) Defendant 2 demanded Defendant 2 to prepare a notarial deed by raising the amount of credit in favor of securing the claim; and (d) Defendant 2 conspired to prepare a notarial deed by adding the amount of KRW 2.50 million to the actual amount of KRW 10 million for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

On August 9, 2010, the Defendants drafted a notarial deed as if Defendant 2 lent KRW 3.5 million to Defendant 1 on May 10, 2010 according to the above public offering.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to bear the false debt amounting to KRW 100 million for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

2. Defendant 1’s sole crime;

The Defendant filed a lawsuit from Nonindicted 4 on August 30, 207, resulting in a specific danger of compulsory execution. For the purpose of evading compulsory execution, the Defendant reported to the Jeju Tax Office on April 30, 2009 that the name of the “○○○○ convenience store” business operator, operated by the Defendant in the ( Address omitted) △△△△△△△△△△△△ building, was registered as Nonindicted 1, the Defendant’s well-known mother, and reported the new business registration to Nonindicted 2, the Defendant’s wife on May 6, 2009. On April 30, 2010, the Defendant reported the name of the “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ on the first and the first floor restaurant, which the Defendant operated, and reported the new registration under the name of Nonindicted 2 in the Jeju Tax Office on April 30, 2010, thereby reporting the name of Nonindicted 3 business operator, which was newly registered in the previous name, thereby reporting the title of “○△△△△△△”.

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement, Defendant 1’s partial statement

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 1 by the prosecution;

1. Statement on Nonindicted 4’s statement, Nonindicted 4’s accusation, petition, and petition for appeal

1. Copy of the judgment (2009Na794) and copy of the notarial deed (No. 588 of 2010),

1. Investigation reports (verification of registration of business operators), investigation reports (report attached to the certificate of closure of business, etc.);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 327 and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment)

Article 327 (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Extent of the commission of offenses, and considering the Defendants’ previous convictions)

Defendant 1 and the defense counsel, with respect to the crime under paragraph (2) of the crime, did not have the name of the business operator of “○○○○○○” and “△△△△△△△△△△” on the grounds that the name of the business operator of “○○○○○○○” and “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” had no possibility to enforce enforcement from the beginning. Defendant 1 and the defense counsel denied the crime against this part, asserting that changing the name of “○○○○○○○” and “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△” to Defendant 1’s wife, from the beginning

In the case of compulsory execution against corporeal movables, if the debtor possesses corporeal movables, the execution officer may seize them without asking whether they belong to the debtor's possession as a truth (Article 189 of the Civil Execution Act), and if the business owner of a ordinary company occupies the articles within the business entity or business articles. Here, the business owner of a company is not necessarily based on the name of the business entity, but rather on the basis of various circumstances, if the actual owner is a person different from the name of the business owner, the actual owner shall be deemed as the possessor and the seizure shall be prohibited.

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, even if the name of the business operator of the “○○○○ convenience store” and “△△△△△△△△△△△ was not Defendant 1, the actual operator of the business is Defendant 1. Thus, when executing corporeal movables, Defendant 1, who actually operates the said business, may be regarded as the possessor of the goods inside the said business, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was no possibility of compulsory execution by the victim solely on the ground that the said business operator did not have been the Defendant.

In addition, in the case of corporeal movables in the place of business, the identity of the proprietor is an important standard for ascertaining the identity of the proprietor, and the crime of evading compulsory execution is intended to punish an obligee’s act of infringing on the possibility of obtaining satisfaction of claims through the compulsory execution procedure against the debtor’s property. In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s act of changing the name of the proprietor without any substantive transaction, such as transfer of business, etc., makes it clear that Defendant 1’s act cannot be identified as the possessor of corporeal movables in the place of business. If the victim is under action after filing a lawsuit against Defendant 1, it appears that Defendant 1 had the intent to evade compulsory execution against the articles

Therefore, Defendant 1 and the defense counsel’s assertion are without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-soo