(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.30 2016고단5616

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.30 2016고단5616

공무상표시무효

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Around February 24, 2015, at the warehouse of the Defendant’s management located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the enforcement officer G of the Seoul Western District Court attached “F” to the Defendant’s possession of the movable property at the time of the execution of the creditor H, 2015 at the time of the execution of the creditor H, and attached the land for the transfer of possession and disposal of the movable property at the above court KRW 508,00,000,000, which is owned by the Defendant based on the original copy of the disposal decision. The execution officer attached the attached goods at the same place around October 27, 2015, at the same time and at the same time with the delegation of the creditor H’s execution, the said enforcement officer attached the attached goods at the Seoul Southern District Court 2015 only one Ka 5017,000,000,000,000,000.

From December 2, 2015 to March 2016, the Defendant removed the above attachment indication at the same place, without permission, and sold 180 pieces of welfare among the items indicated with the attachment indication, and 20 pieces of Obane arbitrarily, thereby impairing the effectiveness of each of the above attachment indication.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A copy of the decision or a copy of the protocol of disposition taken by a emulative family;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of investigation report ( telephone communications with G enforcement officers affiliated with the Seoul Western District Court), the Defendant alleged that the Defendant committed an offense without knowing that delivery of seized goods was illegal upon a creditor’s demand for reimbursement of substitute goods. However, there was such ground as above.

Even if there is any impact on the establishment of a crime

According to the evidence, the above assertion is without merit, since it can be acknowledged that the defendant's goods issued by the creditor (appellant) are extremely only part of the goods disposed of by the defendant.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 140 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime

참조조문

-형법 제140조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.09 2016고단2265

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.01 2018고단2596

-의정부지방법원 2021.02.03 2020고단2345

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.03 2016고단3202

-부산지방법원 2017.07.05 2017고단2150