beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act is a crime committed by a public official by impairing or concealing an indication that he/she has taken specific compulsory measures, such as sealing, seizure of movable property, possession of real estate, etc., or impairing the utility thereof.
Therefore, if the enforcement officer did not perform specific enforcement acts such as sealing or moving of goods to his own possession on the grounds that a provisional disposition ordering the respondent to be omitted was issued by the court, the enforcement officer merely violates the order of omission of provisional disposition, and does not constitute an act detrimental to the utility of indication in the line of duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3364, Sept. 30, 2010, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below should not transfer the possession to another party or change the name of the debtor while executing the disposition of the price of the transfer of possession of the real estate in this case.
“A public notice stating the purport of the enforcement of the instant piece of real estate was attached to the instant real estate. Nevertheless, the Defendant recognized the fact that the name of the business operator of “F” (hereinafter “F”) whose place of business is the instant piece of real estate was changed from the Defendant’s sole name to the Defendant’s joint name, and subsequently, the name of the business operator of the instant marina constitutes the possession of the instant marina and the change of the name of the business operator in violation of the Defendant’s public notice constitutes an act that infringes on the utility of the disposal of the land price prior to the possession of real estate, and thus, upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.
3. However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances known by the records of this case, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below.
A. The provisional disposition of this case is decided.