目录

1. 孙才恩拒不执行判决、裁定案

2. 王开峰拒不执行判决、裁决案

3. 郭金欣拒不执行判决、裁定案

4. 李超拒不执行判决、裁定案

5. 郝富荣拒不执行判决、裁定案

6. 刘平拒不执行判决、裁定案

7. 徐云峰拒不执行判决、裁定案

8. 黄圣非法处置查封财产案

9. 冯家礼非法处置查封财产案

10. 李殿军妨害公务案

案例1

孙才恩拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人拒不履行判决确定的返还房屋义务，擅自将标的物拆毁，导致判决无法执行，被判处有期徒刑一年

（一）基本案情

孙鸿桂早年迁居香港，1994年回乡探亲时出资27500元委托其侄子孙才恩在安徽省霍邱县岔路镇开发区购地建房。孙才恩接受委托后，在霍邱县岔路镇开发区购地建门面房两间、后小房两间及院落。房屋建成后，经孙鸿桂许可，由孙才恩一家居住。其后，当孙鸿桂打算回乡养老居住时，孙才恩拒绝将房屋交还，双方因产权问题发生争议。2007年8月，孙鸿桂为此向霍邱县人民法院提起诉讼。2011年11月，安徽省六安市中级人民法院终审判决孙才恩将房屋及院落交付孙鸿桂。判决生效后，孙才恩拒绝履行交付义务，孙鸿桂遂向霍邱县人民法院申请强制执行。执行立案后，霍邱县人民法院发出公告，责令孙才恩在2012年6月30日前迁出房屋，但孙才恩不仅不履行，还威胁执行人员，使得案件执行陷入僵局。2014年年初，孙才恩竟擅自将房屋拆除，在原址上重新建房，导致执行标的物灭失，生效判决无法执行。

因孙才恩的行为涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪，执行法院将有关证据线索向公安机关移送。公安机关立案侦查后，将其抓获。2015年1月8日，霍邱县人民法院对孙才恩被指控犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪一案依法作出判决，认为被告人孙才恩对人民法院的判决、裁定有能力执行而拒不执行，故意将人民法院生效判决确定应交付他人的房屋拆除，致使执行标的物灭失，情节严重，其行为构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。据此，对其依法以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处有期徒刑一年。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人孙才恩完全有能力执行生效判决，交付房产，但其不仅拒绝、阻碍执行，甚至将房屋拆除，另建新房，直接导致标的物灭失，生效判决无法执行。孙才恩的行为表明其抗拒执行的主观故意明显，情节严重，性质恶劣，社会危害性较大，依法应予惩戒。该判例警示所有被执行人要依法配合执行，任何人试图挑战司法权威和法律底线，都将受到法律制裁。

案例2

王开峰拒不执行判决、裁决案

——被执行人与申请人协商后，将房产解封出售，但将所得款项挪作他用，导致判决无法执行，被判处有期徒刑一年

（一）基本案情

2011年8月，浙江省舟山市普陀区人民法院对郭修朴与王开峰民间借贷纠纷一案作出民事判决，判令王开峰归还郭修朴借款500万元及相应利息。判决生效后，王开峰仅归还50万元。郭修朴遂向舟山市普陀区人民法院申请强制执行。执行立案后，执行法院查封了王开峰与案外人黄竹君共有的房产一套。2013年4月，王开峰与申请执行人郭修朴协商，王开峰与黄竹君承诺以该房产作为抵押向银行贷款200万元用于支付执行款。经郭修朴同意后，执行法院将该房产予以解封。但在申请抵押贷款过程中，王开峰因信用记录不良未能成功办理。2013年7月，在未获得法院及申请执行人同意的情况下，王开峰擅自将该房产以350万卖给他人，所得款项被用于归还个人其他债务及开支。因王开峰名下无其他财产，致使生效判决无法执行。

执行法院将被执行人王开峰规避执行、涉嫌犯罪的线索移送公安机关立案侦查后，王开峰自动到公安机关投案，并作了如实供述。2015年3月13日，舟山市普陀区人民检察院指控王开峰犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪，向普陀区人民法院提起公诉。案件审理期间，王开峰向申请执行人偿还了20万元欠款。3月30日，舟山市普陀区人民法院经开庭审理后作出判决，认为被告人王开峰对人民法院的判决有能力执行而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已经构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于其犯罪后有自首情节，依法可从轻处罚；其部分履行了执行款，可酌情从轻处罚。据此，以犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处被告人王开峰有期徒刑一年。

（二）典型意义

本案中，被执行人王开峰名下被法院查封的房产，系用于履行其与申请执行人郭修朴借款纠纷执行案的财产。其请求法院解封后，将房屋出售所得款项本应用于履行生效判决确定的义务，但其将款项用于了其他开支，导致判决无法执行，属于拒不执行判决、裁定的行为，情节严重，应追究相应的刑事责任。

案例3

郭金欣拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人有200余万元的收入，却拒不履行21万元的法定义务，进入刑事追责程序后全部履行到位，被判处有期徒刑九个月

（一）基本案情

2012年5月15日，河南省宁陵县人民法院对刘红利诉郭金欣借款合同纠纷一案作出民事判决，判令郭金欣归还刘红利21万元及利息。判决生效后，郭金欣未履行义务，刘红利向宁陵县人民法院申请强制执行。宁陵县人民法院受理执行申请后，依法向郭金欣送达了执行通知书及财产报告令，但在法院指定的期限内，郭金欣拒不履行义务，也未报告财产状况。

执行法院在执行过程中查明，郭金欣自2013年以来相继在河南省商丘市公交公司御景新境界、运河景苑、康城花园等工地承包建筑工程，获工程款共计200余万元，完全有能力履行生效判决确定的还款义务。后执行人员根据申请执行人提供的线索，在商丘市某咖啡馆内将郭金欣司法拘留。拘留期间，执行人员反复做劝导工作，动员郭金欣还款，但郭金欣仍拒不履行。宁陵县人民法院遂以被执行人郭金欣涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪，将案件线索移交公安机关侦查。

2014年12月16日，宁陵县人民法院对郭金欣被指控犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪一案作出判决，认为被告人郭金欣有能力履行法院已生效的民事判决而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于郭金欣与刘红利在案件审理期间，达成了执行和解协议并已履行完毕，取得了刘红利的谅解，对其可从轻处罚。据此，对郭金欣依法以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处有期徒刑九个月。

（二）典型意义

本案中，被执行人郭金欣获工程款共计200余万元，完全有能力履行生效判决确定的21万元还款义务，但其一直不履行生效判决，被司法拘留后，仍不悔改，继续对抗执行，情节严重，依法应当以涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪追究刑事责任。如果郭金欣在被执行法院司法拘留期间，能及时悔悟，自动履行判决确定的义务，可能不会被移送追究刑事追责。正是由于其存在一定的侥幸心理，误判了形势，最终被严格依法追究了刑事责任，受到法律的惩处。

案例4

李超拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人转移名下存款并购置豪华汽车，不履行判决义务，被公安机关抓获后全部履行到位，被判处拘役六个月

（一）基本案情

2009年2月，王清晨委托李超办理其名下位于北京市西城区一套房产的房屋买卖及产权转移手续。同年5月，李超将该套房屋卖给第三人并办理了过户手续，收取购房款68万元，但未交付王清晨。王清晨多次催要未果，向北京市东城区人民法院提起诉讼。2011年11月，北京市东城区人民法院作出民事判决，判令李超返还王清晨购房款68万元及利息。判决生效后，李超未履行还款义务，王清晨遂向法院申请强制执行。

北京市东城区人民法院立案执行后向李超发出履行通知，并通过多种方式要求其来法院谈话，李超接到通知后均未前往。2012年3月15日，李超在委托律师到法院接受谈话的当天，将其个人银行账户中26万余元存款提现，并于当年9月以个人名义购买宝马K33型轿车一辆，致使生效判决无法执行。后执行人员多次联系李超并寻找其下落，均无收获。2014年12月，北京市东城区人民法院将李超提取存款购置豪华汽车、逃避执行的相关证据材料移送公安机关。2015年1月19日，北京市公安局东城区分局对李超以涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪立案侦查。李超被公安机关抓获后，在其家属的配合下将68万元执行款全部履行到位。2015年3月30日，北京市东城区人民法院对被告人李超被指控犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪一案进行公开审理并当庭宣判，认定检察机关对被告人李超的指控罪名成立，依法判处其拘役六个月。

（二）典型意义

本案是一起典型的拒不执行判决、裁定罪案件。被执行人李超在明知案件进入执行程序后，拒不到法院接受谈话，亦不履行判决确定的义务，且将其名下银行存款取出购置豪华汽车，显然属于有能力执行而拒不执行，情节严重，符合拒不执行判决、裁定罪的构成要件。虽然李超在被公安机关抓获后，将68万元执行款全部履行到位，但由于其逃避执行情节严重，仍被依法提起公诉。法院综合考虑其犯罪事实、性质、情节和危害程度，依法以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处其拘役六个月，属于罚当其罪。李超为其失信和抗拒执行行为付出了应有的法律代价。

案例5

郝富荣拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人处置名下财产后予以转移、隐匿，逃避执行近十年，被立案侦查后全部履行到位，最终被判处有期徒刑二年，缓刑二年

（一）基本案情

2004年12月，郝富荣雇佣的司机郝德清驾驶郝富荣所有的甘D13248号重刑货车，在甘肃省嘉峪关市迎宾路附近发生交通事故，致行人张引娥左下肢截肢、右下肢大腿高位截瘫，经鉴定为二级伤残，驾驶员郝德清负事故全部责任。其后，张引娥向法院起诉，要求车主郝富荣和驾驶员郝德清赔偿有关损失。2006年1月，甘肃省高级人民法院终审判决郝富荣、郝德清连带赔偿张引娥各项损失共计490977.43元。判决生效后，张引娥向原嘉峪关市人民法院申请强制执行。执行过程中，郝富荣于2006年4月支付6.7万元后即长期下落不明。

执行法院后来经调查了解到，事故发生后，郝富荣曾于2005年6月22日从中国人保白银分公司转账领取保险赔偿款218686元，其中含第三者损失16万元；同年6月28日，郝富荣将肇事货车以13万元的价格转卖给他人，并办理了过户手续。执行法院研究认为，郝富荣的行为涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪，遂于2014年11月将有关线索向当地公安机关移送。公安机关决定立案侦查后，将郝富荣列为上网追逃对象，并迅速将其抓获。慑于法律威严，郝富荣在被公安机关抓获后、检察机关对其提起公诉前，将剩余未履行的528012元赔偿款全部支付。

2015年2月9日，嘉峪关市城区人民法院对郝富荣被指控犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪一案作出判决，认定被告人郝富荣有能力执行法院判决而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪，考虑到其归案后认罪态度较好，并已将赔偿款履行完毕，依法可从轻处罚，判处有期徒刑二年，缓刑二年。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人郝富荣作为交通事故车辆的车主，经生效判决确认应与驾驶员共同对伤者承担连带赔偿责任，但其领取保险理赔款后，还将肇事车辆予以转卖，携款隐匿行踪，应认定为有能力执行而拒不执行。郝富荣转移资产、逃避执行时间长达十年，终究不能逃脱法律对其应有的制裁。

案例6

刘平拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人转移财产至其亲友名下逃避执行，被移送侦查后将全部款项履行到位，被判处有期徒刑十个月，缓刑一年

（一）基本案情

2010年9月19日，湖南省娄底市中级人民法院对原告胡亚琳、付珍诉被告曾志杰、刘平交通事故损害赔偿纠纷一案作出终审判决，判令刘平、曾志杰连带赔偿胡亚琳、付珍经济损失109044.66元。同年11月10日，娄底市娄星区人民法院经胡亚琳、付珍申请，对该案立案执行，但曾志杰、刘平一直不予履行。2012年9月至2013年期间，刘平位于娄底市娄星区万宝镇芭蕉村新屋组的房屋因征地拆迁可获得一笔征收款，刘平为逃避连带赔偿责任，先后二次将其应分得的121234.4元征收款转移至其兄长刘南江名下，致使该案无法执行到位。娄底市娄星区人民法院调查了解到上述事实后，以刘平涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪移送当地公安机关立案侦查。

2014年9月28日，刘平被公安机关抓获，其归案后如实供述了上述转移财产逃避执行的事实。2014年10月27日，娄底市娄星区人民检察院向娄星区人民法院提起公诉，指控刘平犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪。娄底市娄星区人民法院经开庭审理认为，被告人刘平在对人民法院的判决有能力执行的情况下，采取隐藏财产的方式逃避执行，致使判决无法执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于其到案后能如实供述犯罪事实，将应付的执行款项全部履行到位，依法可酌情从轻处罚。据此，该院于2015年1月26日以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处被告人刘平有期徒刑十个月，缓刑一年。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人刘平显然具有履行能力，但其采取隐匿、转移财产至其亲友名下的方式，逃避应承担的交通损害赔偿义务，致使法院判决无法执行，情节严重。公安机关以涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪对刘平立案侦查并将其抓获后，促使刘平履行了生效判决确定的赔偿义务，有效维护了申请执行人的合法权益。同时，刘平也因具有认罪悔罪的实际表现，最终被法院酌情从轻处罚，判处缓刑，效果良好。

案例7

徐云峰拒不执行判决、裁定案

——被执行人以办年审手续为由，将扣押车辆借出后拒不交还，致使案件无法执行，被抓获后履行了全部义务，被判处有期徒刑十个月，缓刑一年

（一）基本案情

2011年2月21日，江苏省新沂市人民法院对原告刘国太与被告徐云峰民间借贷纠纷一案作出民事判决，判令徐云峰偿还刘国太借款20万元及利息。判决生效后，徐云峰未如期履行义务。2013年7月3日，刘国太向新沂市人民法院申请强制执行。执行中，新沂市人民法院依法查询了被执行人徐云峰的银行账户、房屋、土地、工商及车辆登记等财产信息，发现其名下有苏CWH856号昌河车一辆，遂应申请人请求对该车辆作出了查封裁定，并于2014年4月在新沂市高流镇高流街将该车依法扣押。2014年6月，徐云峰以被扣押的昌河车即将进行年审为由，申请将该车开出办理年审手续，并出具书面保证，保证年审之后将车辆及时送回法院。新沂市人民法院考虑该车如脱审会降低价值，遂同意将车交给徐云峰办理年审。徐云峰将车辆开走后将车隐匿，经法院多次催要，拒不交还，导致该案无法执行。2014年10月，新沂市人民法院以被执行人徐云峰涉嫌构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪，将有关线索移送公安机关立案侦查。

新沂市公安局对徐云峰立案侦查后，于2014年12月11日将其抓获。徐云峰归案后，如实供述了隐藏涉案的苏CWH856号昌河车的事实。后该车被追回，移交给新沂市人民法院。2015年1月30日，新沂市人民检察院指控徐云峰犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪，向新沂市人民法院提起公诉。新沂市人民法院经开庭审理后认为，被告人徐云峰故意隐藏财产，对人民法院的判决有能力执行而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。考虑到其到案后能如实供述犯罪事实，并履行了民事判决书中确定的全部还款义务，对其可酌情从轻处罚。据此，该院于2015年3月18日，以徐云峰犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪，判处其有期徒刑十个月，缓刑一年。

（二）典型意义

实践中，有的被执行人为逃避履行生效判决确定的义务，千方百计转移、隐匿财产。本案中被执行人徐云峰就是采取欺骗的手段，将法院已扣押车辆借故开走后隐匿起来，致使法院生效判决无法执行，不仅侵害了申请执行人的合法权益，而且在一定程度上破坏了人民法院正常的执行秩序，情节严重，必须依法追究相应的刑事责任。

案例8

黄圣非法处置查封财产案

——被执行人擅自转卖已查封的财产，导致判决无法执行，进入刑事追责程序后仍拒不履行，被判处有期徒刑一年六个月

（一）基本案情

2012年12月，江西省石城县人民法院对熊世滨与黄圣借款纠纷一案作出民事判决，判令被告黄圣归还原告熊世滨欠款30万元及利息。判决生效后，黄圣未如期履行，熊世滨向石城县人民法院申请强制执行。案件进入执行程序后，执行法院依法向黄圣送达了执行通知书，并查询了其财产情况，但未查到可供执行财产。

2013年5月8日，根据申请执行人提供的线索，执行人员在广东省东莞市大朗镇找到黄圣，黄圣承认在东莞市大朗镇开办雪糕批发部，有5部送货车、2间冻库、250个冰柜及一些办公设备，石城县人民法院依法对上述财产进行查封。次日，黄圣随执行人员回到石城县，因黄圣一直拒不执行生效法律文书确定的义务，石城县人民法院决定对其司法拘留15日。黄圣向执行法院表示愿意将其所有的雪糕批发部财产转让他人，所得款项用于清偿债务。但黄圣回到东莞市后，未经执行法院许可，擅自与他人签订转让合同，将被法院查封的全部财产以46万元转让，所得款项仅支付熊世滨5.3万元。之后，黄圣更换联系方式，躲避法院执行。

2014年8月，黄圣因故被东莞市大朗镇派出所拘留15日。石城县人民法院获此信息后，随即派执行人员将其从东莞市拘留所带回石城县。鉴于黄圣拒不履行生效判决确定的义务，执行法院决定再次对其司法拘留15日，并移交石城县公安局立案侦查。经公安侦查、检察起诉、法庭审理等环节，2014年12月30日，石城县人民法院对被告人黄圣以非法处置查封的财产罪判处其有期徒刑一年六个月。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人黄圣起初因拒不执行法院判决，被司法拘留15日，仍不悔改，在其财产已经被执行法院依法查封的情况下，擅自将财产变卖，将所得款项大部分隐匿、转移，造成生效判决无法执行，其被移送侦查起诉，进入刑事追责程序后，仍拒不履行生效判决确定的义务，情节严重，最终被以非法处置查封的财产罪判处有期徒刑一年六个月，得到应有的惩罚。

案例9

冯家礼非法处置查封财产案

—— 被执行人法定代表人擅自将法院查封的财产变卖，且拒不交出变卖款，被判处有期徒刑十个月

（一）基本案情

2013年12月11日，柳州市柳南区人民法院对柳州市永乐机电设备有限公司与柳州市开钿科技有限公司买卖合同纠纷一案依法作出民事调解书，确认由被告柳州市开钿科技有限公司向原告柳州市永乐机电设备有限公司支付货款本金及违约金合计224800元。诉讼中，法院依原告方申请，将柳州市开钿科技有限公司的5台开式固定台压力机、1台新型电动摆式剪板机、1付剪板机刀片裁定查封。调解书生效后，柳州市开钿科技有限公司未按调解书指定的期间履行给付义务，柳州市永乐机电设备有限公司遂于2014年4月10日向柳南区人民法院申请强制执行。

在执行过程中，执行法院向柳州市开钿科技有限公司下达执行通知书和财产报告令，该公司相关负责人不配合执行。经执行人员多方查找与做工作，被执行人法定代表人冯家礼将5万元偿还给申请人后，坚称公司已无偿还能力，表示已将公司不动产向银行办理抵押贷款，待贷款下发后再偿还欠款。2014年9月中旬，申请执行人向执行法院反映称，冯家礼正私下处理公司财产。执行人员第一时间赶到柳州市开钿科技有限公司进行查看，发现该公司大部份财产已不见踪影。后经调查取证，了解到冯家礼已将法院查封的相关设备以15万元的价格转卖给他人，且未将款项支付给申请执行人。2014年9月28日，执行法院将冯家礼涉嫌非法处置查封的财产罪线索移送公安机关。同日，公安机关决定立案侦查并将冯家礼刑事拘留。2015年1月15日，柳州市柳南区人民法院对检察机关指控冯家礼犯非法处置查封的财产罪一案依法作出判决，认定被告人冯家礼作为被执行人柳州市开钿科技有限公司的法定代表人，在未经执行法院许可的情况下，擅自将法院查封的财产以15万余元的价格变卖，且拒不交出该款，致使柳州市永乐机电设备有限公司的货款无法收回，情节严重，其行为构成非法处置查封的财产罪，依法判处有期徒刑十个月。

（二）典型意义

非法处置查封、扣押、冻结的财产罪是指隐藏、转移、变卖、故意毁损已被司法机关查封、扣押、冻结的财产，情节严重的行为。这种行为是针对已由法院采取财产保全或其他限制处分权的执行措施的财产所为，势必妨害生效裁判的执行。本案中被执行人法定代表人冯家礼明知执行法院已将该公司的相关设备查封，未经法院许可，仍擅自变卖，且拒不交出变卖款，导致申请执行人的货款无法收回，情节严重，符合非法处置查封的财产罪的犯罪构成，应受到依法惩处。

案例10

李殿军妨害公务案

——被执行人采取暴力手段抗拒执行，并抢走执法记录仪，造成恶劣影响，被判处有期徒刑一年六个月

（一）基本案情

2012年1月，吉林省农安县人民法院对张明俊与李殿军土地承包合同纠纷一案作出民事调解书，确认被告李殿军给付原告张明俊土地承包金4500元。调解书生效后，因李殿军未自动履行，张明俊向农安县人民法院申请强制执行。农安县人民法院依法向李殿军送达了执行通知书及报告财产令，但李殿军仍未履行调解书确定的义务，亦未申报财产，执行法院决定对其进行司法拘留。

2014年8月6日，农安县人民法院执行人员李某、郝某到农安县青山口乡江东王村后三道屯李殿军家中对李殿军实施拘留。李殿军被带上执法车后，借故要与其妻子说话，推开车门下车返回家中，执行人员李某跟随李殿军进屋。突然，李殿军拿起一把二十多厘米长的水果刀，对执行人员吼叫“给我滚”，同时持刀向其扑去，执行人员李某赶紧跑出，李殿军仍持刀不断追赶，途中执行人员随身携带的执法取证仪掉落，被李殿军抢走。由于李殿军暴力抗法，此次执行行动受阻，在当地造成恶劣影响。后执行人员向当地公安机关报案，公安机关以李殿军涉嫌妨害公务罪立案侦查，并于8月13日将其刑事拘留。2014年11月12日，李殿军被检察机关提起公诉。农安县人民法院经开庭审理后认为，被告人李殿军以持刀威胁的方法阻碍国家机关工作人员依法执行职务，其行为已构成妨害公务罪，依法判处有期徒刑一年六个月。

（二）典型意义

人民法院工作人员在执行工作中实施的查封、扣押、冻结等执行行为及采取罚款、司法拘留等强制措施，均属于国家机关依法执行职务、履行职责的公务行为。任何人以暴力、威胁的方式故意阻碍执行人员执行公务的，都有可能构成妨害公务罪，被依法追究刑事责任。本案中被执行人李殿军对执行人员以刀相向，抢走执法记录仪，暴力抗法，触犯刑律，最终受到了应有的制裁，任何企图以暴力方式抗拒执行者均应引以为戒。

catalogue

1. Sun Caien's refusal to execute judgments or rulings

2. Wang Kaifeng's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

3. Guo Jinxin's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

4. Li Chao's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

5. Case of Hao Furong Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

6. Liu Ping's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

7. Xu Yunfeng's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

8. Huang Sheng's Illegal Disposal of Confiscated Property Case

9. Feng Jiali's Illegal Disposal of Confiscated Property Case

10. Case of Li Dianjun obstructing official duties

Case 1

Case of Sun Cai'en Refusing to Execute Judgment or Ruling

——The person who is executed refuses to fulfill the obligation of returning the house as determined by the judgment and demolishes the subject matter without authorization, resulting in the inability to execute the judgment, and is sentenced to one year in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

Sun Honggui moved to Hong Kong in his early years. In 1994, when he returned to his hometown to visit his family, he invested 27500 yuan to entrust his nephew Sun Cai'en to purchase land and build houses in the development zone of Chalu Town, Huoqiu County, Anhui Province. After accepting the commission, Sun Cai'en purchased land in the development zone of Chalu Town, Huoqiu County to build two storefront rooms, two small back rooms, and a courtyard. After the house is completed, with the permission of Sun Honggui, it will be inhabited by the Sun Caien family. Afterwards, when Sun Honggui planned to return to his hometown for retirement, Sun Caien refused to return the house, and a dispute arose between the two parties over property rights. In August 2007, Sun Honggui filed a lawsuit against Huoqiu County People's Court for this matter. In November 2011, the Intermediate People's Court of Lu'an City, Anhui Province, ultimately ruled that Sun Caien would deliver the house and courtyard to Sun Honggui. After the judgment came into effect, Sun Caien refused to fulfill his obligation to deliver, and Sun Honggui applied to the People's Court of Huoqiu County for compulsory execution. After the execution and filing of the case, the People's Court of Huoqiu County issued a notice ordering Sun Cai'en to vacate the house before June 30, 2012. However, Sun Cai'en not only failed to comply, but also threatened the execution personnel, leading to a deadlock in the execution of the case. At the beginning of 2014, Sun Caien unexpectedly demolished the house without authorization and rebuilt it on the original site, resulting in the loss of the subject matter of execution and the inability to enforce the effective judgment.

Due to Sun Caien's behavior being suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings, the executing court will transfer relevant evidence clues to the public security organs. After the public security organs filed a case for investigation, they arrested him. On January 8, 2015, the People's Court of Huoqiu County made a judgment in accordance with the law on the case of Sun Cai'en being accused of refusing to execute judgments and rulings. It believed that the defendant Sun Cai'en had the ability to execute judgments and rulings of the People's Court but refused to execute them, intentionally demolishing the house that the People's Court had determined to be handed over to others, resulting in the loss of the subject matter of execution. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute judgments and rulings. Based on this, he was sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling in accordance with the law.

（2） Typical significance

The person being executed in this case, Sun Caien, is fully capable of executing the effective judgment and delivering the property. However, he not only refuses or hinders the execution, but also demolishes the property and builds a new one, directly causing the loss of the subject matter and making the effective judgment unenforceable. Sun Caien's behavior indicates that his subjective intention to resist execution is obvious, the circumstances are serious, the nature is bad, and the social harm is significant. He should be punished according to law. This precedent warns all those subjected to enforcement to cooperate in accordance with the law, and anyone attempting to challenge judicial authority and legal bottom line will be subject to legal sanctions.

Case 2

Case of Wang Kaifeng Refusing to Execute Judgments and Awards

——After consultation with the applicant, the person subjected to execution unsealed and sold the property, but misappropriated the proceeds, resulting in the inability to execute the judgment and being sentenced to one year in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

In August 2011, the People's Court of Putuo District, Zhoushan City, Zhejiang Province made a civil judgment on the civil loan dispute between Guo Xiupu and Wang Kaifeng, ordering Wang Kaifeng to repay Guo Xiupu's loan of 5 million yuan and corresponding interest. After the judgment came into effect, Wang Kaifeng only returned 500000 yuan. Guo Xiupu then applied for compulsory execution to the Putuo District People's Court of Zhoushan City. After the case was filed, the enforcement court seized a property jointly owned by Wang Kaifeng and the outsider Huang Zhujun. In April 2013, Wang Kaifeng negotiated with the executor Guo Xiupu and promised to use the property as collateral to borrow 2 million yuan from the bank to pay the execution fee. With the consent of Guo Xiupu, the execution court lifted the seal on the property. However, during the process of applying for a mortgage loan, Wang Kaifeng was unable to successfully handle it due to his poor credit record. In July 2013, without the consent of the court and the applicant for enforcement, Wang Kaifeng sold the property to others for 3.5 million yuan, and the proceeds were used to repay other personal debts and expenses. Due to Wang Kaifeng having no other property under his name, the effective judgment cannot be enforced.

After the execution court transferred the clues of Wang Kaifeng evading execution and suspected crime to the public security organs for investigation, Wang Kaifeng automatically submitted to the public security organs and made a truthful statement. On March 13, 2015, the People's Procuratorate of Putuo District, Zhoushan City accused Wang Kaifeng of refusing to execute judgments or rulings and filed a public prosecution with the Putuo District People's Court. During the trial of the case, Wang Kaifeng repaid 200000 yuan in arrears to the applicant for enforcement. On March 30th, the People's Court of Putuo District, Zhoushan City made a judgment after a trial, believing that the defendant Wang Kaifeng had the ability to execute the judgment of the People's Court and refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior had constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given that he/she voluntarily surrendered after committing a crime, he/she may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law; If it partially fulfills the execution fee, it may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Based on this, the defendant Wang Kaifeng was sentenced to one year in prison for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

In this case, the property seized by the court under the name of the executed person Wang Kaifeng is used to fulfill the loan dispute between him and the applicant Guo Xiupu. After requesting the court to lift the lockdown, the proceeds from the sale of the house were originally used to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment, but the funds were used for other expenses, causing the judgment to be unenforceable. This is an act of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling, and the circumstances are serious, and corresponding criminal responsibility should be pursued.

Case 3

Guo Jinxin's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person subjected to execution has an income of over 2 million yuan, but refuses to fulfill the legal obligation of 210000 yuan. After entering the criminal accountability procedure, they fully fulfill their obligations and are sentenced to nine months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 15, 2012, the People's Court of Ningling County, Henan Province made a civil judgment in the case of Liu Zihong v. Guo Jinxin over a loan contract dispute, ordering Guo Jinxin to repay Liu Zihong with 210000 yuan and interest. After the judgment came into effect, Guo Jinxin failed to fulfill his obligations, and Liu Honghong applied to the People's Court of Ningling County for compulsory execution. After the People's Court of Ningling County accepted the execution application, it served the execution notice and property report order to Guo Jinxin in accordance with the law. However, within the time limit specified by the court, Guo Jinxin refused to fulfill his obligations and did not report the property status.

During the execution process, the enforcement court found that Guo Jinxin has been contracting construction projects at construction sites such as Yujing New Realm, Yunhe Jingyuan, and Kangcheng Garden of Shangqiu Public Transport Company in Henan Province since 2013, and has received a total of more than 2 million yuan in project payments. He is fully capable of fulfilling the repayment obligations determined by the effective judgment. According to the clues provided by the applicant for enforcement, the post enforcement personnel detained Guo Jinxin in a coffee shop in Shangqiu City. During the detention period, the execution personnel repeatedly conducted persuasion work to mobilize Guo Jinxin to repay, but Guo Jinxin still refused to comply. The People's Court of Ningling County then transferred the clues of the case to the public security organs for investigation, accusing the executed person Guo Jinxin of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

On December 16, 2014, the People's Court of Ningling County made a judgment on the case of Guo Jinxin being accused of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling, stating that the defendant Guo Jinxin had the ability to fulfill a civil judgment that had already come into effect and refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. Considering that Guo Jinxin and Liu Honghong reached a settlement agreement during the trial period and have fulfilled it, and obtained Liu Honghong's understanding, they can be given a lighter punishment. Based on this, Guo Jinxin was sentenced to nine months in prison for refusing to execute judgments or rulings in accordance with the law.

（2） Typical significance

In this case, the executed person Guo Jinxin received a total of over 2 million yuan in project funds and was fully capable of fulfilling the repayment obligation of 210000 yuan determined by the effective judgment. However, he has not fulfilled the effective judgment and, after being detained by the judiciary, still does not repent and continues to resist execution. The circumstances are serious, and criminal responsibility should be investigated for suspected refusal to execute the judgment or ruling according to law. If Guo Jinxin can timely repent and automatically fulfill the obligations determined by the judgment during the judicial detention of the executing court, he may not be transferred for criminal prosecution. It was precisely due to his certain sense of luck that he misjudged the situation and was ultimately held criminally responsible in strict accordance with the law and punished by the law.

Case 4

Li Chao's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The executed person transferred their savings and purchased a luxury car, but failed to fulfill their judgment obligations. After being arrested by the public security organs, they fully fulfilled their obligations and were sentenced to six months of detention

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2009, Wang Morning entrusted Li Chao to handle the purchase and sale of a property under his name located in Xicheng District, Beijing, as well as the transfer of property rights. In May of the same year, Li Chao sold the house to a third party and completed the transfer procedures, collecting a purchase price of 680000 yuan, but did not deliver it to Wang Morning. Wang Morning repeatedly urged but failed, and filed a lawsuit with the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing. In November 2011, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing issued a civil judgment, ordering Li Chao to return the purchase price of 680000 yuan and interest to Wang Mori. After the judgment came into effect, Li Chao failed to fulfill his repayment obligation, and Wang Morning applied to the court for compulsory execution.

After the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing filed and executed the case, it issued a notice of performance to Li Chao and requested him to come to the court for a conversation through various means. Li Chao did not attend after receiving the notice. On March 15, 2012, Li Chao withdrew over 260000 yuan from his personal bank account and purchased a BMW K33 sedan in his personal name in September of that year, on the day he entrusted a lawyer to the court for an interview, resulting in the inability to enforce the effective judgment. The executors contacted Li Chao multiple times and searched for his whereabouts, but received no results. In December 2014, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing transferred the relevant evidence materials of Li Chao withdrawing deposits to purchase luxury cars and evading execution to the public security organs. On January 19, 2015, the Dongcheng District Branch of the Beijing Public Security Bureau filed an investigation against Li Chao on suspicion of refusing to execute judgments or rulings. After Li Chao was arrested by the public security organs, with the cooperation of his family, he fully fulfilled the execution fee of 680000 yuan. On March 30, 2015, the Dongcheng District People's Court of Beijing conducted a public trial and pronounced a verdict on the case of defendant Li Chao, who was accused of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. The court found that the prosecution was guilty of the accusation against the defendant Li Chao and sentenced him to six months of detention in accordance with the law.

（2） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. After being aware that the case had entered the execution process, the executed person Li Chao refused to go to the court for an interview, nor did he fulfill the obligation determined by the judgment, and withdrew his bank deposit from his name to purchase a luxury car. Obviously, he had the ability to execute but refused to execute, and the circumstances were serious, which met the constitutive requirements of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Although Li Chao fulfilled all the execution fees of 680000 yuan after being arrested by the public security organs, he was still prosecuted in accordance with the law due to his serious evasion of execution. The court, taking into account the facts, nature, circumstances, and degree of harm of his crime, sentenced him to six months of detention for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling in accordance with the law, which is considered as a punishment. Li Chao paid the due legal price for his dishonesty and resistance to execution.

Case 5

Hao Furong's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Case

——After disposing of the property under his name, the person subjected to execution was transferred or concealed, evading execution for nearly ten years. After being filed for investigation, he fully fulfilled his duties and was ultimately sentenced to two years in prison with a two-year probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

In December 2004, the driver hired by Hao Furong, Hao Deqing, drove the heavily executed truck Gan D13248 owned by Hao Furong. A traffic accident occurred near Yingbin Road in Jiayuguan City, Gansu Province, causing pedestrian Zhang Yin'e to have her left lower limb amputated and her right lower thigh paraplegia at a high level. The driver, Hao Deqing, was identified as a second level disability and was fully responsible for the accident. Afterwards, Zhang Yin'e filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding compensation from the car owner Hao Furong and the driver Hao Deqing for the related losses. In January 2006, the Higher People's Court of Gansu Province issued a final judgment that Hao Furong and Hao Deqing jointly compensated Zhang Yin'e with a total of 490977.43 yuan for various losses. After the judgment came into effect, Zhang Yin'e applied to the original Jiayuguan City People's Court for compulsory execution. During the execution process, Hao Furong's whereabouts were unknown for a long time after paying 67000 yuan in April 2006.

The enforcement court later learned through investigation that after the accident occurred, Hao Furong transferred 218686 yuan of insurance compensation from the China People's Insurance Corporation Baiyin Branch on June 22, 2005, including 160000 yuan of third-party losses; On June 28 of the same year, Hao Furong resold the damaged truck to others for 130000 yuan and completed the transfer procedures. The execution court found that Hao Furong's behavior was suspected of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings, and in November 2014, the relevant clues were transferred to the local public security organs. After the public security organs decided to file a case for investigation, they listed Hao Furong as the target of online pursuit and quickly arrested him. Afraid of the legal authority, Hao Furong paid the remaining outstanding compensation of 528012 yuan after being arrested by the public security organs and before the procuratorial organs filed a public prosecution against him.

On February 9, 2015, the People's Court of Jiayuguan City District issued a judgment on the case of Hao Furong being accused of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. It found that the defendant Hao Furong had the ability to execute the court's judgment but refused to execute it, and the circumstances were serious. His behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Considering that he had a good attitude of pleading guilty after being brought to justice and had already fulfilled the compensation, he could be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law, sentenced to two years in prison and suspended for two years.

（2） Typical significance

The person who was executed in this case, Hao Furong, as the owner of a traffic accident vehicle, was confirmed by the effective judgment to be jointly liable for compensation with the driver to the injured person. However, after receiving the insurance compensation, he also resold the accident vehicle and concealed his whereabouts with the money, which should be deemed capable of execution and refused to execute. Hao Furong transferred assets and evaded execution for a period of ten years, but ultimately could not escape the sanctions that the law should impose on him.

Case 6

Liu Ping's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person subjected to execution transfers property to their relatives and friends to evade execution, and after being transferred for investigation, all funds are fully paid. They are sentenced to ten months' imprisonment and one year's probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 19, 2010, the Intermediate People's Court of Loudi City, Hunan Province made a final judgment in the case of plaintiff Hu Yalin and Fu Zhen suing defendants Zeng Zhijie and Liu Ping for compensation for traffic accident damages, ordering Liu Ping and Zeng Zhijie to jointly compensate Hu Yalin and Fu Zhen for economic losses of 109044.66 yuan. On November 10 of the same year, the People's Court of Louxing District, Loudi City, applied for enforcement of the case by Hu Yalin and Fu Zhen, but Zeng Zhijie and Liu Ping have not been able to comply. From September 2012 to 2013, Liu Ping's house located in the Xinwu Group of Bajiao Village, Wanbao Town, Louxing District, Loudi City was eligible for a collection of land due to land acquisition and demolition. To avoid joint and several liability, Liu Ping transferred his share of the 121234.4 yuan collection to his brother Liu Nanjiang twice, resulting in the inability to execute the case effectively. After investigating and learning of the above facts, the People's Court of Louxing District in Loudi City transferred Liu Ping to the local public security organs for investigation on suspicion of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

On September 28, 2014, Liu Ping was arrested by the public security organs and truthfully confessed the fact that the transfer of property had evaded execution. On October 27, 2014, the People's Procuratorate of Louxing District in Loudi City filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Louxing District, accusing Liu Ping of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling. After a trial, the People's Court of Louxing District, Loudi City found that the defendant Liu Ping, who was able to execute the judgment of the People's Court, evaded execution by hiding his property, resulting in the inability to execute the judgment. The circumstances were serious and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Considering that he/she can truthfully confess the facts of the crime after arriving at the case and fully fulfill the payable execution funds, he/she may be given a lighter punishment according to the law. According to this, on January 26, 2015, the court sentenced the defendant Liu Ping to ten months in prison with a one-year probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

The person executed in this case, Liu Ping, obviously has the ability to fulfill his obligations, but he evaded his obligation to compensate for traffic damage by hiding or transferring his property to his relatives and friends, resulting in the court's judgment being unable to be executed, and the circumstances are serious. After the public security organs investigated and arrested Liu Ping on suspicion of constituting the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings, Liu Ping fulfilled the compensation obligation determined by the effective judgment and effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution. At the same time, Liu Ping was ultimately given a lenient punishment and suspended sentence by the court due to his actual performance of pleading guilty and repenting, with good results.

Case 7

Case of Xu Yunfeng Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

——The person subjected to execution refused to return the detained vehicle on the grounds of completing the annual review procedures, resulting in the inability to execute the case. After being arrested, he fulfilled all his obligations and was sentenced to ten months in prison with a one-year probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 21, 2011, the People's Court of Xinyi City, Jiangsu Province made a civil judgment on the civil loan dispute between the plaintiff Liu Guotai and the defendant Xu Yunfeng, ordering Xu Yunfeng to repay Liu Guotai's loan of 200000 yuan and interest. After the judgment came into effect, Xu Yunfeng failed to fulfill his obligations as scheduled. On July 3, 2013, Liu Guotai applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Xinyi City. During the execution, the People's Court of Xinyi City lawfully searched the bank account, house, land, industrial and commercial registration, and other property information of the defendant Xu Yunfeng, and found that he had a Changhe vehicle numbered Su CWH856 under his name. Therefore, at the request of the applicant, the vehicle was sealed and seized in accordance with the law on Gaoliu Street, Gaoliu Town, Xinyi City in April 2014. In June 2014, Xu Yunfeng applied to have the detained Changhe vehicle released for annual review procedures, citing the upcoming annual review. He also issued a written guarantee to ensure that the vehicle would be promptly returned to the court after the annual review. The People's Court of Xinyi City considered that if the car were to be removed from the trial, it would reduce its value, and therefore agreed to hand over the car to Xu Yunfeng for annual trial. Xu Yunfeng drove the vehicle away and hid it. After being repeatedly urged by the court, he refused to return it, resulting in the inability to execute the case. In October 2014, the People's Court of Xinyi City transferred the relevant clues to the public security organs for investigation on suspicion that the executed person Xu Yunfeng constituted the crime of refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

After the Xinyi Public Security Bureau filed an investigation into Xu Yunfeng, he was arrested on December 11, 2014. After Xu Yunfeng was brought to justice, he truthfully confessed the fact that the Su CWH856 Changhe vehicle involved in the case was hidden. The car was later recovered and handed over to the People's Court of Xinyi City. On January 30, 2015, the People's Procuratorate of Xinyi City accused Xu Yunfeng of refusing to execute judgments or rulings and filed a public prosecution with the Xinyi City People's Court. After a trial, the People's Court of Xinyi City found that the defendant Xu Yunfeng intentionally concealed his property and refused to execute the judgment of the People's Court due to his ability to do so. The circumstances were serious and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Considering that he/she can truthfully confess the facts of the crime after arriving at the case and fulfill all the repayment obligations determined in the civil judgment, he/she may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. According to this, on March 18, 2015, the court sentenced Xu Yunfeng to ten months' imprisonment and one year's probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

In practice, some executed individuals try their best to transfer or conceal property in order to avoid fulfilling the obligations determined by the effective judgment. In this case, the person being executed, Xu Yunfeng, resorted to deception by concealing the vehicle that had been seized by the court on the pretext of driving away, causing the court's effective judgment to be unenforceable. This not only infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution, but also to a certain extent disrupted the normal execution order of the people's court. The circumstances were serious, and corresponding criminal responsibility must be pursued in accordance with the law.

Case 8

Huang Sheng's Illegal Disposal of Confiscated Property Case

——The person subjected to execution illegally resells the confiscated property, resulting in the inability to execute the judgment and refusing to comply even after entering the criminal accountability procedure. He is sentenced to one year and six months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

In December 2012, the People's Court of Shicheng County, Jiangxi Province made a civil judgment on the loan dispute between Xiong Shibin and Huang Sheng, ordering the defendant Huang Shenggui to restore the debt owed by Xiong Shibin of 300000 yuan and interest. After the judgment came into effect, Huang Sheng failed to fulfill it as scheduled, and Xiong Shibin applied to the People's Court of Shicheng County for compulsory execution. After the case entered the execution process, the execution court served an execution notice to Huang Sheng in accordance with the law and inquired about his property situation, but no executable property was found.

On May 8, 2013, according to the clues provided by the applicant for enforcement, the enforcement personnel found Huang Sheng in Dalang Town, Dongguan City, Guangdong Province. Huang Sheng admitted to opening an ice cream wholesale department in Dalang Town, Dongguan City, which had 5 delivery trucks, 2 freezers, 250 freezers, and some office equipment. The People's Court of Shicheng County lawfully seized the above-mentioned property. The next day, Huang Sheng returned to Shicheng County with the execution personnel. Due to Huang Sheng's continuous refusal to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents, the Shicheng County People's Court decided to detain him for 15 days. Huang Sheng expressed his willingness to transfer all of his ice cream wholesale department property to others and use the proceeds to repay the debt to the enforcement court. But after Huang Sheng returned to Dongguan City, without the permission of the enforcement court, he signed a transfer contract with others and transferred all the property seized by the court for 460000 yuan. The proceeds were only paid to Xiong Shibin for 53000 yuan. Afterwards, Huang Sheng changed his contact information to avoid court enforcement.

In August 2014, Huang Sheng was detained for 15 days by the Dalang Town Police Station in Dongguan City for various reasons. After receiving this information, the People's Court of Shicheng County immediately dispatched execution personnel to take him back from the Dongguan Detention Center to Shicheng County. Considering Huang Sheng's refusal to fulfill his obligations as determined by the effective judgment, the executing court decided to detain him for another 15 days and transfer him to the Shicheng County Public Security Bureau for investigation. After public security investigation, prosecution, and court trial, on December 30, 2014, the People's Court of Shicheng County sentenced the defendant Huang Sheng to one year and six months in prison for the crime of illegally disposing of seized property.

（2） Typical significance

The person who was executed in this case, Huang Sheng, was initially detained for 15 days due to his refusal to execute the court's judgment. However, he did not repent and sold his property without authorization, hiding and transferring most of the proceeds even though it had been lawfully sealed up by the executing court. As a result, the effective judgment could not be enforced. He was transferred for investigation and prosecution, and even after entering the criminal accountability procedure, he still refused to fulfill his obligations as determined by the effective judgment, and the circumstances were serious, Finally, he was sentenced to one year and six months in prison for the crime of illegally disposing of seized property, and received the appropriate punishment.

Case 9

Feng Jiali's Illegal Disposal of Confiscated Property Case

——The legal representative of the person subjected to execution illegally sells the property sealed up by the court and refuses to pay the proceeds of the sale, and is sentenced to ten months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 11, 2013, the People's Court of Liunan District, Liuzhou City issued a civil mediation letter in accordance with the law regarding the dispute over the sales contract between Liuzhou Yongle Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. and Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd., confirming that the defendant Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd. would pay the plaintiff Liuzhou Yongle Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. a total of 224800 yuan in principal and liquidated damages. In the lawsuit, the court, on the application of the plaintiff, ordered the sealing of 5 open-end fixed press machines, 1 new electric swing shearing machine, and 1 pair of shearing machine blades of Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd. After the mediation agreement came into effect, Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd. failed to fulfill its payment obligations within the period specified in the mediation agreement. Therefore, Liuzhou Yongle Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. applied for compulsory execution to the Liunan District People's Court on April 10, 2014.

During the execution process, the execution court issued an execution notice and property report order to Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd. The relevant person in charge of the company did not cooperate with the execution. After multiple searches and work by the execution personnel, Feng Jiali, the legal representative of the executed person, repaid 50000 yuan to the applicant and insisted that the company was no longer able to repay. He stated that the company's real estate had been mortgaged to the bank and the debt would be repaid after the loan was issued. In mid September 2014, the applicant for enforcement reported to the enforcement court that Feng Jiali was privately handling the company's assets. The execution personnel rushed to Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd. in Liuzhou City for inspection and found that most of the company's assets had disappeared. After investigation and evidence collection, it was found that Feng Jiali had resold the relevant equipment seized by the court to others for 150000 yuan and had not paid the amount to the applicant for enforcement. On September 28, 2014, the execution court transferred the clue of Feng Jiali's suspected illegal disposal of confiscated property to the public security organs. On the same day, the public security organs decided to file a case for investigation and criminally detain Feng Jiali. On January 15, 2015, the People's Court of Liunan District, Liuzhou City made a judgment in accordance with the law in the case of the prosecution accusing Feng Jiali of committing the crime of illegally disposing of seized property. It found that the defendant Feng Jiali, as the legal representative of the executed person Liuzhou Kaidian Technology Co., Ltd., sold the seized property of the court for over 150000 yuan without the permission of the enforcement court, and refused to pay the amount, Causing the inability to recover the payment for the goods of Yongle Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd. in Liuzhou City, the circumstances are serious, and his behavior constitutes the crime of illegally disposing of seized property, and he is sentenced to ten months' imprisonment in accordance with the law.

（2） Typical significance

The crime of illegally disposing of seized, seized, or frozen property refers to the act of concealing, transferring, selling, or intentionally damaging property that has been seized, seized, or frozen by judicial authorities, with serious circumstances. This behavior is directed against property that has already been subject to enforcement measures such as property preservation or other restrictions on disposal rights by the court, which is bound to hinder the execution of effective judgments. In this case, Feng Jiali, the legal representative of the person subjected to enforcement, knowingly sold the company's relevant equipment without the court's permission, and refused to pay the proceeds, resulting in the applicant's inability to recover the payment. The circumstances are serious and meet the criminal offense of illegally disposing of seized property, and should be punished in accordance with the law.

Case 10

Li Dianjun's obstruction of official duties case

——The person subjected to execution used violent means to resist execution and stole the law enforcement recorder, causing a negative impact, and was sentenced to one year and six months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

In January 2012, the People's Court of Nong'an County, Jilin Province issued a civil mediation agreement in the case of land contract dispute between Zhang Mingjun and Li Dianjun, confirming that the defendant Li Dianjun paid the plaintiff Zhang Mingjun a land contract fee of 4500 yuan. After the mediation agreement came into effect, Zhang Mingjun applied to the People's Court of Nong'an County for compulsory execution due to Li Dianjun's failure to automatically fulfill it. The People's Court of Nong'an County has served an enforcement notice and a property report order on Li Dianjun in accordance with the law, but Li Dianjun has not fulfilled the obligations determined in the mediation agreement or declared his property. The enforcement court has decided to impose judicial detention on him.

On August 6, 2014, Li and Hao, the executors of the People's Court of Nong'an County, detained Li Dianjun at his home in Housandaotun, Jiangdong Wang Village, Qingshankou Township, Nong'an County. After Li Dianjun was taken into a law enforcement car, he used an excuse to talk to his wife and pushed open the car door to get off and return home. The execution officer Li followed Li Dianjun into the house. Suddenly, Li Dianjun picked up a fruit knife that was more than 20 centimeters long and shouted "Get out of here" to the executor. At the same time, he rushed towards him with the knife. The executor Li quickly ran out, but Li Dianjun continued to chase after him with the knife. The law enforcement and evidence collection device carried by the executor fell off and was taken away by Li Dianjun. Due to Li Dianjun's violent resistance to the law, the execution of this operation was hindered and had a negative impact on the local area. The post execution personnel reported the case to the local public security organs, and the public security organs filed an investigation on Li Dianjun's suspicion of obstructing official duties, and on August 13th, he was criminally detained. On November 12, 2014, Li Dianjun was prosecuted by the procuratorial organs. After a court hearing, the People's Court of Nong'an County found that the defendant Li Dianjun obstructed state officials from carrying out their duties in accordance with the law by threatening with a knife, and his behavior constituted the crime of obstructing official duties. He was sentenced to one year and six months in prison in accordance with the law.

（2） Typical significance

The actions of sealing up, detaining, freezing, and other enforcement measures taken by personnel of the People's Court during their execution work, as well as the imposition of fines, judicial detention, and other coercive measures, are all official acts of state organs in accordance with the law in the performance of their duties and duties. Anyone who intentionally obstructs the execution of official duties by means of violence or threat may constitute the crime of obstructing official duties and be held criminally responsible in accordance with the law. In this case, the person executed, Li Dianjun, used a knife to attack the execution personnel, stole the law enforcement recorder, violently resisted the law, violated the criminal law, and ultimately received the necessary sanctions. Any attempt to resist the execution through violence should be taken as a warning.