Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Jong-le

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, as an investor of Nonindicted Co. 1, was registered as the representative director of the said company from February 25, 2010 to May 20, 2010.

Around May 18, 2010, when Nonindicted Co. 2, a real operator of Nonindicted Co. 1, entered into a contract to sell 40,000 salt to Nonindicted Co. 3, the Defendants secured the salt of Nonindicted Co. 1 and recovered the investment money of Defendant 1, and the fact that the sales contract was not entered into between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Defendant 2. However, Nonindicted Co. 1 conspired to prepare a false sales contract and a receipt as if he first sold the salt owned by Nonindicted Co. 1 to Defendant 2, and to apply for provisional disposition against the prohibition of disposal of the salt owned by Nonindicted Co. 1.

On May 26, 2010, at the office of Nonindicted Co. 1 in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendants drafted a sales contract stating that Nonindicted Co. 1 shall sell 170,350,795,500 sun-dried salt to Defendant 2, and received KRW 350,795,50 from Defendant 2 as down payment, respectively, around June 1, 2010, the Defendants submitted a false sales contract and receipt prepared by Defendant 2 against Nonindicted Co. 1 as evidence of the above court 2010Kahap132 case, for which Defendant 2 applied for the measure of prohibiting the disposal of corporeal movables, to accept the above provisional disposition on June 8, 2010.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the legitimate execution of the court's provisional disposition order by fraudulent means.

2. Determination:

The court's provisional disposition is a preservative measure to prevent changes in the legal and factual records of the dispute that is the object of dispute until the time when the petitioner's compulsory execution is enforced, and it does not require urgency and the other party to the procedure, which bring about provisional effects, and does not definitely determine the existence of legal relations as to the dispute (in such sense, the nature of the administrative agency's authorization and permission disposition which has a formative effect of changing the legal relationship, is different from that of the administrative agency's authorization and permission disposition which has a formative effect of changing the legal relationship). On the other hand, even if the notice of the provisional disposition is given, the other party can immediately dispute its validity through the objection or the request for cancellation, and the court's decision as to

In light of the above procedural structure and effect of the provisional disposition order, it may be deemed that the propriety of the court's decision on provisional disposition was infringed due to the act as stated in the facts charged by the Defendants, but it cannot be said that the court's specific and realistic execution of duties was interfered with. Thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means is not established just on the ground that the Defendants' fraudulent act was rendered a wrong provisional disposition order due to the fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do312 delivered on October 11, 196, etc.

Therefore, even if based on all evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ act has reached the degree of practically obstructing the court’s specific performance of duties, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, the court below rendered a verdict of innocence against the Defendants under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ordered public disclosure of the summary of the judgment against the Defendants pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges fixed number of judges