Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Transferring possession after an attachment notice as annulling an official mark
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2024Do6213 (judgment)
Case name: 공무상표시무효
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, does the crime of annulling official marks arise where, after a court officer has attached to real property a notice recording the effect of an order prohibiting a transfer of possession, the attachment debtor transfers possession of that property to another person, and did the defendant here commit that crime by buying the container and taking part of the possession?
Holding
Yes, in principle. A transfer of possession of the real property by the attachment debtor after the notice has been attached effectively does away with the effect of that notice, and constitutes the crime unless there are special circumstances. On these facts the defendant bought the container from B after prior contact and took possession in the same way B had, and that transfer could not be treated as performance of the delivery claim preserved for A, so there was ample ground to find that the usefulness of the attachment mark was harmed, and the acquittal misapplied the law on the elements of the crime.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
집행관이 부동산에 관하여 점유이전금지가처분을 집행하면서 ‘채무자는 점유를 다른 사람에게 이전하여서는 아니 된다.’는 등의 집행 취지가 기재되어 있는 고시문을 부동산에 부착한 이후에 가처분 채무자가 다른 사람에게 부동산의 점유를 이전하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 고시문의 효력을 사실상 없애버리는 행위이므로 공무상표시무효죄에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where, after an enforcement officer, in enforcing a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of real property, posts on the real property a notice stating the gist of that enforcement, such as 'The debtor must not transfer possession to another person,' a subsequent transfer of possession of the real property by the debtor under the provisional disposition to another person is an act that, absent special circumstances, virtually nullifies the effect of that notice, and therefore constitutes the crime of inactivating official marks.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
형법 제140조 제1항의 공무상표시무효죄는 공무원이 그 직무에 관하여 봉인, 동산의 압류, 부동산의 점유 등과 같은 구체적인 강제처분을 실시하였다는 표시를 손상 또는 은닉하거나 기타 방법으로 그 효용을 해함으로써 성립하는 범죄이다.
Unofficial English translation
The crime of inactivating official marks under Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act is a crime that is established by damaging or concealing a representation that a public official has carried out a specific compulsory measure, such as sealing, attachment of movables, or taking possession of real property, in connection with his or her duties, or by impairing its efficacy by other means.
Factors
- 집행관이 부동산에 관하여 점유이전금지가처분을 집행하면서 ‘채무자는 점유를 다른 사람에게 이전하여서는 아니 된다.’는 등의 집행 취지가 기재되어 있는 고시문을 부동산에 부착한 이후에
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 고시문의 효력을 사실상 없애버리는 행위이므로
- 피고인이 사전 연락하에 을로부터 컨테이너를 매수하여 을이 종전에 부동산을 점유하던 방법과 동일한 방법으로 부동산을 점유한 점 등에 비추어
- 가처분 결정의 채권자는 갑이고 피보전권리는 갑이 소유권에 기하여 보유하는 부동산 인도청구권이므로, 그 인도청구권의 이행은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 갑에게 이루어져야 하는 점
- 갑과 피고인 등의 분쟁 경위에 비추어 갑이 피고인에게 동업약정 해소에 따른 정산금 명목의 돈을 지급하였을 무렵 피고인, 갑 등으로 구성된 동업자들 조합은 해산되었다고 보이거나 적어도 정상적으로 운영되는 상황은 아니었던 점
Unofficial English translation
• after an enforcement officer, in enforcing a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of real property, posted on the real property a notice stating the gist of that enforcement, such as 'The debtor must not transfer possession to another person,'
• absent special circumstances, an act that virtually nullifies the effect of that notice, and therefore,
• considering that the defendant, in prior contact, purchased the container from B and possessed the real property in the same manner as B had previously possessed the real property, among other things,
• the creditor under the provisional disposition order is A, and the right to be preserved is the claim for delivery of the real property held by A on the basis of ownership, so that performance of that claim for delivery must, absent special circumstances, be made to A,
• considering the circumstances of the dispute between A and the defendant and others, at around the time A paid the defendant money in the name of a settlement amount arising from the dissolution of the partnership agreement, the partnership of the partners, including the defendant and A, appears to have been dissolved, or at least was not in a normally operating state
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1980. 12. 23. 선고 80도1963 판결(공1981, 13598), 대법원 2004. 10. 28. 선고 2003도8238 판결, 대법원 2016. 5. 12. 선고 2015도20322 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 80Do1963 decided December 23, 1980 (Gong 1981, 13598), Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8238 decided October 28, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2015Do20322 decided May 12, 2016
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1980. 12. 23. 선고 80도1963 판결(공1981, 13598), 대법원 2004. 10. 28. 선고 2003도8238 판결, 대법원 2016. 5. 12. 선고 2015도20322 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where only part of the possession is transferred, what shows that the part obtained was enough to remove the effect of the notice?
The judgment the Daejeon District Court gives on remand, having to re-examine the charge, will show how the rule applies in practice. A later decision on when a transfer to a member of a dissolved partnership is performance of the preserved delivery claim would also require this entry to be read again, as would any amendment to Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
Both readings record the burden of proof as not addressed, so the flagged divergence likely comes from the standard-form axis (requirement listing versus application to the facts) rather than from burden.
피고인이 을로부터 부동산의 점유를 일부 이전받음으로써 공무원이 그 직무에 관하여 실시한 가처분 집행 표시의 효용을 해하였다고 볼 여지가 충분하다는 이유로Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where only part of the possession is transferred, what shows that the part obtained was enough to remove the effect of the notice?” vs Independent “Under what circumstances would delivery to a co-investor constitute valid performance to the injunction creditor?”
The primary asks how much of the possession must be transferred to remove the notice's effect where only part is transferred, while the independent asks when delivery to a co-investor would count as valid performance to the creditor.
집행관이 부동산에 관하여 점유이전금지가처분을 집행하면서 ‘채무자는 점유를 다른 사람에게 이전하여서는 아니 된다.’는 등의 집행 취지가 기재되어 있는 고시문을 부동산에 부착한 이후에 가처분 채무자가 다른 사람에게 부동산의 점유를 이전하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 고시문의 효력을 사실상 없애버리는 행위이므로 공무상표시무효죄에 해당한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Daejeon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 3 April 2024 (2022No3509), reversed the first-instance guilty verdict and acquitted the defendant. It held that B's transfer of possession to the defendant, who with A and two others jointly invested in the property and held it in A's name as a partner, was performance of the obligation to deliver the property preserved by the attachment, or at least a repayment, so it could not be treated as harming the mark. It also held that, since the defendant had as a partner already begun possession of the property the moment B ceased to possess it, the defendant had not received or succeeded to any possession from B.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the crime is made out by damaging, hiding or otherwise harming the usefulness of a mark showing that an official has carried out a concrete compulsory measure in the course of duty, and that a transfer of possession by the attachment debtor after the notice was attached effectively removes the force of that notice unless there are special circumstances. On this record the defendant bought the container from B on the very day B began to clear it, and the same day marked the container as showing that he possessed the property, with the result that the enforcement officer could not execute the delivery order. Because the attachment preserved A's delivery claim, the partnership may be deemed dissolved by then or at least was not operating normally, and the transfer was against A's will and without prior discussion with him, it could not be treated as performance of that claim, so the acquittal misapplied the law on the elements and the judgment was reversed and remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the court officer has not yet attached to the property a notice recording the effect of the prohibition on transferring possession.
- A case in which the possession goes to A himself, the attachment creditor whose preserved right is the claim to delivery of the property, so that the transfer is the ordinary way that right is realised.
- A case in which the circumstances the Court relied on for finding a transfer are absent, such as no prior contact, no purchase on the day the debtor was to clear the property, and no possession in the same way as before.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the circumstances the Court relied on for finding that part of the possession was transferred, and against those it relied on for rejecting performance of the preserved claim, since the reversal rests on that combination. Check the date the notice was attached, the date the delivery order became final, and the date of the purchase, because the crime turned on what happened after the attachment. Also confirm whether the partnership had been dissolved before the purchase, since the Court said it may be deemed dissolved around the payment of the settlement to the defendant, or at least was not operating normally.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 형법 제140조 제1항 공무상표시무효죄의 성립 요건 / 집행관이 부동산에 관하여 점유이전금지가처분을 집행하면서 그 집행 취지가 기재된 고시문을 부동산에 부착한 이후에 가처분 채무자가 다른 사람에게 부동산의 점유를 이전하는 경우, 공무상표시무효죄에 해당하는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 피고인은 갑 등과 공동 투자하여 부동산(토지)을 갑 명의로 경락받아 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 을은 그 이전부터 부동산으로 진입하는 출입구에 화물차를 주차하고 그 위에 컨테이너를 올려 관리하는 방법으로 부동산을 점유하면서 유치권을 행사해 왔는바, 갑이 을을 채무자로 하는 부동산 점유이전금지가처분 결정을 받아 집행을 위임하자, 집행관이 가처분을 집행하면서 그 집행 취지가 기재된 고시문을 컨테이너에 부착하였고, 이후 을은 법원으로부터 ‘갑에게 부동산을 인도하라.’는 명령을 받았는데, 피고인은 갑과 부동산 관련 분쟁이 생기자 을과 공모하여, 을로부터 부동산에 있던 컨테이너를 매수하여 자신이 직접 컨테이너를 점유함으로써 부동산의 점유 일부를 이전받는 방법으로 부동산 점유이전금지가처분 집행의 효용을 해하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, 피고인이 을로부터 부동산의 점유를 일부 이전받음으로써 공무원이 그 직무에 관하여 실시한 가처분 집행 표시의 효용을 해하였다고 볼 여지가 충분하다는 이유로, 이와 달리 본 원심판단에 공무상표시무효죄의 성립 등에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Requirements for establishing the crime of inactivating official marks under Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act / Where, after an enforcement officer, in enforcing a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of real property, posts on the real property a notice stating the gist of that enforcement, the debtor under the provisional disposition transfers possession of the real property to another person, whether this constitutes the crime of inactivating official marks (affirmative in principle) [2] The defendant, having jointly invested with A and others, acquired the real property (land) at auction in A's name and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership, while B, from before that transfer, possessed the real property by parking a freight truck at the entrance providing access to the real property and placing a container on it to manage it, and has exercised a lien; when A obtained a provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the real property with B as the debtor and entrusted the enforcement thereof, the enforcement officer, in enforcing the provisional disposition, posted on the container a notice stating the gist of that enforcement, and thereafter B received an order from the court to 'deliver the real property to A'; in a case where the defendant was prosecuted on the alleged facts in the indictment that, upon a dispute arising with A concerning the real property, the defendant conspired with B, purchased from B the container that had been on the real property, and directly possessed the container himself, thereby receiving a transfer of part of the possession of the real property and impairing the efficacy of the enforcement of the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession of the real property, a case in which it was held that the judgment of the court below erred in misapprehension of legal principles, among other things, as to the establishment of the crime of inactivating official marks, on the ground that there is sufficient room for regarding the defendant as having impaired the efficacy of the mark of the enforcement of the provisional disposition carried out by a public official in connection with his or her duties, by receiving from B a partial transfer of possession of the real property
Summary of the holding
[1] 형법 제140조 제1항의 공무상표시무효죄는 공무원이 그 직무에 관하여 봉인, 동산의 압류, 부동산의 점유 등과 같은 구체적인 강제처분을 실시하였다는 표시를 손상 또는 은닉하거나 기타 방법으로 그 효용을 해함으로써 성립하는 범죄이다. 집행관이 부동산에 관하여 점유이전금지가처분을 집행하면서 ‘채무자는 점유를 다른 사람에게 이전하여서는 아니 된다.’는 등의 집행 취지가 기재되어 있는 고시문을 부동산에 부착한 이후에 가처분 채무자가 다른 사람에게 부동산의 점유를 이전하는 것은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 고시문의 효력을 사실상 없애버리는 행위이므로 공무상표시무효죄에 해당한다. [2] 피고인은 갑 등과 공동 투자하여 부동산(토지 4필지)을 갑 명의로 경락받아 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고, 을은 그 이전부터 부동산으로 진입하는 출입구에 화물차를 주차하고 그 위에 컨테이너를 올려 관리하는 방법으로 부동산을 점유하면서 유치권을 행사해 왔는바, 갑이 을을 채무자로 하는 부동산 점유이전금지가처분 결정을 받아 집행을 위임하자, 집행관이 가처분을 집행하면서 그 집행 취지가 기재된 고시문을 컨테이너에 부착하였고, 이후 을은 법원으로부터 ‘갑에게 부동산을 인도하라.’는 명령을 받았는데, 피고인은 갑과 부동산 관련 분쟁이 생기자 을과 공모하여, 을로부터 부동산에 있던 컨테이너를 매수하여 자신이 직접 컨테이너를 점유함으로써 부동산의 점유 일부를 이전받는 방법으로 부동산 점유이전금지가처분 집행의 효용을 해하였다는 공소사실로 기소된 사안에서, ① 피고인이 사전 연락하에 을로부터 컨테이너를 매수하여 을이 종전에 부동산을 점유하던 방법과 동일한 방법으로 부동산을 점유한 점 등에 비추어, 피고인이 을로부터 컨테이너를 매수하여 부동산에 놓아두는 방법으로 부동산에 대한 점유를 일부 이전받았다고 볼 수 있고, ② 가처분 결정의 채권자는 갑이고 피보전권리는 갑이 소유권에 기하여 보유하는 부동산 인도청구권이므로, 그 인도청구권의 이행은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 갑에게 이루어져야 하는 점, 갑과 피고인 등의 분쟁 경위에 비추어 갑이 피고인에게 동업약정 해소에 따른 정산금 명목의 돈을 지급하였을 무렵 피고인, 갑 등으로 구성된 동업자들 조합은 해산되었다고 보이거나 적어도 정상적으로 운영되는 상황은 아니었던 점 등을 종합할 때, 을이 피고인에게 부동산의 점유를 이전한 것을 두고, 가처분 채권자인 갑에 대하여 가처분으로 보전하고자 한 부동산 인도청구권을 실현하는 채무를 이행한 것이라거나 변제행위를 한 것이라고 보기 어려우므로, 피고인이 을로부터 부동산의 점유를 일부 이전받음으로써 공무원이 그 직무에 관하여 실시한 가처분 집행 표시의 효용을 해하였다고 볼 여지가 충분하다는 이유로, 이와 달리 보아 피고인에게 무죄를 선고한 원심의 판단에 공무상표시무효죄의 성립 등에 관한 법리오해의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 대전지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 형법 제140조 제1항 / [2] 형법 제30조, 제140조 제1항, 민법 제703조, 제720조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger