拒执罪自诉案件典型案例

目录

1、郭可存拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

2、李许东拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

3、刘永宾拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

4、杨现涛、袁朝玉拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

5、廖长年犯拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

6、柯文水拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

案例1 郭可存拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人拖欠农民工工资，两次拘留后仍拒不履行执行义务，申请执行人向人民法院提起自诉，被执行人被判处有期徒刑二年六个月

(一)基本案情

2014年3月至2014年12月，刘大龙带领17名农民工在郭可存的窖厂为其务工，郭可存拖欠农民工工资11.8万元，刘大龙多次催要无果，遂将其诉至河南省商丘市睢阳区人民法院。2015年1月13日，该院作出（2015）商睢民初字第139号民事调解书，确认郭可存于2015年1月15日前支付9800元，同年1月20日前支付2万元，剩余8.82万元于同年4月15日前付清。郭可存于2015年1月14日向刘大龙实际支付9800元，其余款项在协议约定的期限内未履行。2015年2月2日，刘大龙向商丘市睢阳区人民法院申请强制执行，该院于当日立案执行。执行法院向郭可存送达了执行通知书，责令其申报财产状况。由于郭可存拒不履行支付义务并拒绝报告财产状况，2015年5月18日，执行法院对郭可存拘留15日。采取拘留措施后，郭可存仍拒不履行支付义务，2015年6月2日，执行法院向郭可存送达了执行裁定书，限其于2015年6月30日前依照生效民事调解书确定事项履行义务。因郭可存拒绝履行，执行法院于2015年11月20日再次对其拘留15日。截至2015年11月24日，郭可存仍拖欠刘大龙等农民工工资10.82万元及迟延利息。后刘大龙向公安机关提起控告，公安机关不予受理。

2015年11月24日，刘大龙向商丘市睢阳区人民法院提起自诉，要求追究郭可存拒不执行判决、裁定的刑事责任，该院于当日立案。同年12月4日，该院对郭可存予以逮捕。同年12月9日，该院对本案公开开庭审理并当庭宣判，以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处郭可存有期徒刑二年六个月。一审宣判后，郭可存不上诉。执行法院已对申请执行人刘大龙等农民工司法救助2万元。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人经营窑场，对欠付的农民工工资有支付能力，故意拖欠而不予履行，执行法院曾两次对其实施拘留措施，但其仍不思悔改，继续逃避执行。进入审判程序后，仍置多名农民工的生活困难于不顾，拒不履行生效裁定确定的支付义务，无认罪悔罪的实际表现，最终以拒不执行判决、裁定罪被判处有期徒刑二年六个月，为其拒不执行行为付出了应有的法律代价。

案例2 李许东拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人领取保险理赔款后挪作他用，致使案件无法执行，申请执行人向人民法院提起自诉，被执行人被判处拘役六个月，缓刑一年

(一)基本案情

李许东与吕某等人道路交通事故责任纠纷一案，河南省原阳县人民法院于2013年12月3日作出民事判决，确认李许东赔偿被害人吕某等人11.2万元。民事判决生效后，李许东未履行判决所确定的赔偿义务，吕某等人于2014年4月9日向原阳县人民法院申请强制执行，该院立案执行。执行法院向李许东送达了执行通知书，但李许东未在限定的时间内履行赔偿义务。2014年7月，执行法院先后对李许东罚款1万元，拘留15日，李许东仍不履行赔偿义务。2014年7月18日，李许东向执行法院书面保证，待其诉保险公司的案件胜诉后，主动将保险理赔款交至执行法院。同年9月24日,保险公司依据禹州市人民法院的民事调解书，将10万元赔偿款汇入李许东委托的代理人牛某的银行储蓄卡中，牛某于同年9月27日将该款取出交付李许东，但李许东未按书面保证向执行法院如实申报和主动履行。2015年7、8月间，执行法院两次通知李许东申报财产，李许东仍不如实申报和主动履行，并将部分保险理赔款挪作他用,致使生效民事判决无法执行。

2015年7月29日，吕某等人以李许东构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪向公安机关提出控告，公安机关未予受理。2015年8月5日，吕某等人向原阳县人民法院提起自诉。在原阳县人民法院对本案审理过程中，李许东与自诉人吕某等人自愿达成和解协议，并一次性赔偿吕某等人各项损失12.3344万元，取得了吕某等人的谅解。原阳县人民法院经审理认为，李许东对人民法院生效判决有能力执行而拒不执行，且拒不报告其财产状况，被处以罚款、拘留后仍拒不执行，犯罪情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于李许东当庭认罪态度较好，在一审宣判前能够与吕某等人达成和解，并主动履行判决确定义务，确有认罪悔罪表现，依法可对其从轻处罚。该院以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处李许东拘役六个月，缓刑一年。一审宣判后，李许东不上诉。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人对生效判决确定的赔偿义务有能力执行而拒不执行，被施以罚款、拘留后仍不思悔改，将领取的保险理赔款私自挪作他用，致使生效判决无法执行，应依法追究其刑事责任。本案以自诉方式启动追诉程序，最终促使被执行人履行了赔偿义务，取得了申请执行人的谅解。本案是最高人民法院拒执罪司法解释发布后河南省第一起宣判的自诉案件，对该省拒执自诉案件的审判起到了示范作用。

案例3 刘永宾拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人刘永宾存在高消费，有能力执行生效判决而拒不执行，申请执行人向人民法院提起自诉，被执行人被判处有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年

(一)基本案情

淄博融信融资担保有限公司（以下称融信公司）与淄博齐顺运输有限公司、刘中华、陈玉华、刘永宾、朱继红、淄博奥昕经贸有限公司担保追偿权纠纷一案，山东省淄博市高新技术开发区人民法院作出民事判决，判令淄博齐顺运输有限公司于判决生效十日内偿还融信公司银行垫款200万元，支付违约金100万元；刘中华、陈玉华、刘永宾、朱继红、淄博奥昕经贸有限公司对上述款项承担连带清偿责任。

民事判决生效以后，刘永宾等人未履行还款义务。2015年6月18日，融信公司向淄博市高新技术开发区人民法院申请强制执行，该院立案执行。执行法院向刘永宾发出执行通知书，并多次查找联系，刘永宾及其亲属故意躲避，拒不履行付款义务，执行法院于2015年9月10日作出拘留决定书，对刘永宾采取拘留措施，并在其日常驾驶的奥迪轿车中查获“九五至尊”牌香烟十条，LV包一个，茶叶六盒。就在刘永宾被拘留的当日，在法院协调组织下，刘永宾与申请执行人达成执行和解协议。协议约定：刘永宾于2015年9月10日前支付50万元，同年9月25日前支付50万元，余款及利息自同年10月份每月支付10万元左右，直至付清为止，连续三个月最低付款额不得少于30万元，若刘永宾不按上述规定期限支付款项，则自愿承担相应的法律责任。协议签订后，刘永宾未按协议约定履行义务，融信公司向公安机关提出控告，公安机关于2015年9月14日向融信公司出具不予立案通知书。同年9月18日，融信公司向淄博市高新技术开发区人民法院提起自诉。

淄博市高新技术开发区人民法院经审理认为，刘永宾实际控制的公司正常经营，月收入两、三万元，但在民事判决生效后及本院执行期间，刘永宾未与申请执行人积极协商还款事宜，仍存在驾驶高档轿车、使用高档消费品、居住高档住房等行为，特别是在法院主持下与申请执行人达成和解协议后仍不按约履行，应当认定其具有有能力执行而拒不执行的主观故意，鉴于刘永宾在法庭庭审过程中与自诉人重新达成和解协议，部分款项已经支付，自诉人同意对其从轻处罚，可依法对其从轻处罚。该院以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处刘永宾有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年。

（二）典型意义

执行法院及时对被执行人有履行能力而拒不执行的相关证据进行调查取证，积极引导当事人及时依法行使控告、报案的权利。在当事人提起自诉后，执行法院的立案部门、刑事审判部门和执行机构加强沟通协调，迅速立案，及时审理，依法判决，促使被告人偿还欠款。本案自立案执行到自诉刑事案件的审结，在不到6个月的时间内，执行法院充分利用法律手段，依法严厉惩治了拒执犯罪行为，有效促进了案件的执行，切实保障了申请执行人的合法权益。

案例4 杨现涛、袁朝玉拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人拒绝报告个人财产状况，在执行过程中仍自建住房，有能力执行而拒不执行，申请执行人向人民法院提起自诉，被执行人被判处缓刑

（一）基本案情

2011年6月，袁朝玉承揽宋保通的建房施工，双方约定：在施工中发生的任何事故宋保通概不负责。施工中袁朝玉将支壳子、圈梁的施工部分转包给杨现涛，杨现涛雇李根生等人务工。2011年8月12日，李根生等人乘坐工地龙门架下工，因机器发生故障，李根生受伤。后李根生以袁朝玉、杨现涛、宋保通为被告向河南省偃师市人民法院起诉，偃师市人民法院作出（2011）偃镇民初字第486号民事判决，确认袁朝玉、杨现涛赔偿李根生各项损失7.957万元，宋保通补偿李根生损失3000元（已履行）。后李根生就二次手术产生费用再次起诉，偃师市人民法院作出（2013）偃民六初字第308号民事判决书，判决袁朝玉、杨现涛赔偿李根生二次手术等各项费用4706.02元。判决生效后，李根生向偃师市人民法院申请强制执行，该院立案执行。执行法院向杨现涛、袁朝玉送达了报告财产令，要求申报个人财产状况，并依法将二人纳入失信被执行人名单,限制二人的高消费,对二人的银行存款、车辆、房产信息进行查询，冻结了袁朝玉银行存款8649元。因袁朝玉、杨现涛拒绝报告个人财产状况，袁朝玉未就相应存款作出合理解释，执行法院依法对二人采取了拘留措施。

执行法院还查明，袁朝玉系建筑队包工头，常年在偃师市区附近从业，自称每月收入3000元左右。2014年6月6日袁朝玉的儿子结婚，袁朝玉为儿子婚宴花费2万多元。杨现涛于2015年初将自家房屋拆除，重新建盖新房，执行人员多次传其到庭，考虑其房子已经拆除，要求其在建盖新房的一层封顶后立即停工，但杨现涛未能按照要求停工，仍建造两层房屋，并对一楼房屋进行装修。对于本案的执行，袁朝玉、杨现涛表示最多支付1万元。

案件执行期间，李根生要求追究杨现涛、袁朝玉拒执犯罪的刑事责任，执行法院引导其向当地公安局递交控告材料，并向公安机关反馈案件的执行情况。公安机关审查后出具不予立案通知书。李根生遂向偃师市人民法院提起自诉，偃师市人民法院依法受理，并对杨现涛、袁朝玉作出逮捕决定。

在自诉案件审理期间，杨现涛、袁朝玉的家人积极与李根生协商，很快达成执行和解协议，一次性支付李根生6.6万元，执行案件予以结案。李根生遂向偃师市人民法院出具了对杨现涛、袁朝玉予以谅解的书面材料。该院经审理，以拒不执行判决、裁定罪依法判处袁朝玉判处有期徒刑一年六个月，缓刑二年；判处杨现涛有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人杨现涛在执行过程中建盖新房并装修房屋，被执行人袁朝玉在银行有一定存款，又为包工头，有固定收入，两人均有履行能力而拒不履行,拒绝报告个人财产状况，对其施以拘留措施后仍不思悔改，依法应追究其刑事责任。申请执行人在向公安机关控告无果后，依法以自诉的方式要求追究被执行人拒不执行判决、裁定的刑事责任，通过审判，一方面惩罚了拒执犯罪行为，另一方面也促使被执行人及时履行生效判决确定的义务，促使案件能够顺利执结。

案例5 廖长年犯拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人对生效裁定有能力执行而拒不执行，申请执行人向人民法院提起自诉，双方自愿达成和解协议，被执行人得到自诉人的谅解，被免予刑事处罚

(一)基本案情

徐加顺与廖长年等民间借贷纠纷一案，福建省将乐县人民法院作出（2013）将民初字第254号民事调解书，确认廖长年等人向徐加顺偿还借款30万元及利息。该民事调解书生效后，因廖长年等人未履行还款义务，徐加顺向将乐县人民法院申请强制执行,该院立案执行。执行法院为执行该调解书下达了执行裁定，并于2015年10月23日向廖长年送达执行通知书，要求廖长年将其名下车牌号为闽GS0356的轿车立即交付执行法院。执行法院另查明，廖长年居住于未办理产权的一幢自建房中，其个人所有的位于将乐县的一处4间店面房长年出租，每月租金2600元，其村里2014年向其发放补贴1.584万元。因廖长年拒不履行生效法律文书确定的义务，徐加顺遂向公安机关提出控告，公安机关向其出具不予受理决定书。2015年11月26日，徐加顺以廖长年犯拒不执行判决、裁定罪，向将乐县人民法院提起自诉。

2015年12月15日，被告人廖长年与自诉人徐加顺达成和解协议，约定廖长年每月返还徐加顺2500元，取得了徐加顺的谅解。将乐县人民法院经审理认为，廖长年对人民法院的裁定有能力执行而拒不执行，拒不交付执行裁定指定交付的财物，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于廖长年能如实供述拒执犯罪事实，犯罪情节轻微，已与自诉人达成和解协议，取得了对方谅解，对其可免予刑事处罚。据此，将乐县人民法院以拒不执行判决、裁定罪判处廖长年免予刑事处罚。

（二）典型意义

本案被执行人完全有能力执行人民法院为执行生效调解书所作出的执行裁定，而被执行人拒不履行执行义务，其行为已构成拒不执行判决、裁定罪。鉴于被执行人拒执犯罪情节轻微，在自诉案件审理过程中，又与自诉人达成和解协议，取得了自诉人的谅解，可对其从轻处罚。

案例6 柯文水拒不执行判决、裁定自诉案

被执行人有能力履行而拒不履行还款义务，申请执行人向人民法院依法提起自诉，双方自愿达成和解协议，申请执行人申请撤诉,人民法院裁定准予撤诉

（一）基本案情

肖辉与柯文水等民间借贷纠纷一案，福建省将乐县人民法院作出（2014）将民初字第893号民事调解书，确认柯文水等人向肖辉偿还借款160万元及利息。调解书生效后，因柯文水等人未履行还款义务，肖辉向将乐县人民法院申请强制执行，该院立案执行。执行法院为执行生效调解书作出了执行裁定，查封柯文水名下车牌号为闽G98552的奥德赛牌轿车一辆，要求将该轿车交付执行法院。但柯文水仍使用该车辆，拒不交付法院执行。肖辉遂向公安机关提出控告，公安机关向其出具不予受理决定书。

2015年12月15日，肖辉向将乐县人民法院提起自诉，要求追究柯文水拒不执行判决、裁定的刑事责任。2015年12月20日，柯文水与肖辉达成和解协议，约定柯文水分期向肖辉偿还欠款，取得了自诉人的谅解。在案件审理中，肖辉主动向将乐县人民法院申请撤回自诉。将乐县人民法院作出裁定准予撤诉。

（二）典型意义

在案件执行过程中，申请执行人积极收集被执行人拒不执行判决、裁定的相关证据，符合自诉条件的，通过自诉程序依法追究被执行人的刑事责任，将对被执行人产生一定的威慑，迫使被执行人主动协商案件执行的解决方案，在双方已经达成和解、被执行人取得自诉人谅解、自诉人要求撤诉的情况下，依照法律规定，人民法院应当准许自诉人撤诉。

Typical Cases of Self Prosecution for Refusal to Execute Crime

catalogue

1. Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

2. Li Xudong's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

3. Liu Yongbin's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

4. Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu Refusing to Execute Judgments and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

5. Liao Changnian's Case of Private Prosecution in Case of Refusing to Execute Judgment and Ruling

6. Case of Ke Wenshui's Refusal to Execute Judgment or Ruling in Private Prosecution

Case 1: Guo Kecun's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution defaulted on the wages of migrant workers and refused to fulfill their execution obligations after being detained twice. The applicant filed a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution was sentenced to two years and six months in prison

（1） Basic facts of the case

From March 2014 to December 2014, Liu Dalong led 17 migrant workers to work for Guo Kecun in his cellar factory. Guo Kecun owed 118000 yuan in wages to migrant workers, but Liu Dalong repeatedly urged him to do so without success. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, Henan Province. On January 13, 2015, the court issued a civil mediation agreement (2015) Shang Sui Min Chu Zi No. 139, confirming that Guo Kecun paid 9800 yuan before January 15, 2015, 20000 yuan before January 20 of the same year, and the remaining 88200 yuan was paid in full before April 15 of the same year. Guo Kecun made an actual payment of 9800 yuan to Liu Dalong on January 14, 2015, and the remaining payments were not fulfilled within the agreed period. On February 2, 2015, Liu Dalong applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, and the court filed a case for execution on that day. The enforcement court served an enforcement notice on Guo Kecun, ordering him to declare his property status. On May 18, 2015, the enforcement court detained Guo Kecun for 15 days due to his refusal to fulfill his payment obligations and to report on his property status. After taking detention measures, Guo Kecun still refused to fulfill his payment obligations. On June 2, 2015, the enforcement court served an enforcement ruling on Guo Kecun, limiting him to fulfill his obligations according to the effective civil mediation agreement before June 30, 2015. Due to Guo Kecun's refusal to perform, the enforcement court detained him for another 15 days on November 20, 2015. As of November 24, 2015, Guo Kecun still owed 108200 yuan in wages and delayed interest to migrant workers such as Liu Dalong. Later, Liu Dalong filed a complaint with the public security organs, which did not accept it.

On November 24, 2015, Liu Dalong filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, demanding that Guo Kecun be held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. The court filed the case on the same day. On December 4th of the same year, the court arrested Guo Kecun. On December 9th of the same year, the court held a public hearing on this case and pronounced a verdict in court. Guo Kecun was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the first instance verdict, Guo Kecun did not appeal. The enforcement court has granted legal aid of 20000 yuan to migrant workers such as Liu Dalong, who applied for enforcement.

（2） Typical significance

The person subjected to execution in this case operated a kiln and had the ability to pay the unpaid wages of migrant workers. They intentionally defaulted and did not fulfill their obligations. The execution court had twice imposed detention measures on them, but they still did not repent and continued to evade execution. After entering the trial process, he still disregarded the living difficulties of several migrant workers, refused to fulfill the payment obligations determined by the effective ruling, and showed no actual repentance. In the end, he was sentenced to two years and six months in prison for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling, paying the legal price he deserved for his refusal to execute.

Case 2: Li Xudong's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

After receiving insurance claims, the person subjected to execution was diverted for other purposes, resulting in the inability to execute the case. The applicant for execution filed a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution was sentenced to six months of detention and one year of probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a road traffic accident liability dispute between Li Xudong and Lv and others, the People's Court of Yuanyang County, Henan Province issued a civil judgment on December 3, 2013, confirming that Li Xudong compensated the victim Lv and others with 112000 yuan. After the civil judgment came into effect, Li Xudong failed to fulfill the compensation obligation determined by the judgment. On April 9, 2014, Lv and others applied to the People's Court of Yuanyang County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The enforcement court served an enforcement notice on Li Xudong, but Li Xudong did not fulfill his compensation obligation within the limited time. In July 2014, the enforcement court successively fined Li Xudong 10000 yuan and detained him for 15 days. However, Li Xudong still failed to fulfill his compensation obligations. On July 18, 2014, Li Xudong provided a written guarantee to the enforcement court that after winning the case against the insurance company, he would voluntarily hand over the insurance compensation to the enforcement court. On September 24th of the same year, the insurance company transferred 100000 yuan of compensation to the bank savings card of Niu, the agent entrusted by Li Xudong, based on the civil mediation agreement of the People's Court of Yuzhou City. Niu withdrew the payment and delivered it to Li Xudong on September 27th of the same year, but Li Xudong did not truthfully declare and voluntarily fulfill the written guarantee to the executing court. In July and August 2015, the enforcement court notified Li Xudong twice to declare his property, but Li Xudong still failed to truthfully declare and voluntarily fulfill his obligations, and misappropriated some of the insurance claims, resulting in the inability to enforce the effective civil judgment.

On July 29, 2015, Lv and others filed a complaint with the public security organs regarding Li Xudong's refusal to execute a judgment or ruling, but the public security organs did not accept it. On August 5, 2015, Lv and others filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Yuanyang County. During the trial of this case by the People's Court of Yuanyang County, Li Xudong voluntarily reached a settlement agreement with the private prosecutor Lv and others, and compensated Lv and others for various losses of 123344 yuan in a lump sum, obtaining the understanding of Lv and others. After trial, the People's Court of Yuanyang County found that Li Xudong had the ability to execute the effective judgment of the People's Court but refused to execute it, and refused to report his property status. Despite being fined or detained, he still refused to execute. The criminal circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given that Li Xudong had a good attitude of pleading guilty in court and was able to reach a settlement with Lv and others before the first instance verdict was pronounced, and actively fulfilled his obligation to confirm the verdict, he did indeed confess and repent, and could be given a lighter punishment according to law. The court sentenced Li Xudong to six months of detention and one year of probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. After the first instance verdict, Li Xudong did not appeal.

（2） Typical significance

The person subject to enforcement in this case has the ability to enforce the compensation obligation determined by the effective judgment but refuses to do so. After being fined or detained, he still refuses to repent and misappropriates the insurance compensation received for other purposes, resulting in the inability to enforce the effective judgment. Therefore, his criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law. This case initiated the prosecution process through private prosecution, ultimately prompting the person subjected to execution to fulfill their compensation obligations and obtaining the understanding of the applicant for execution. This case is the first private prosecution case pronounced in Henan Province after the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation of the crime of refusal to execute was released, and has played a exemplary role in the trial of private prosecution cases in that province.

Case 3: Liu Yongbin's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution, Liu Yongbin, has high consumption and the ability to execute effective judgments, but refuses to execute them. The applicant for execution files a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution is sentenced to six months in prison with a one-year probation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zibo Rongxin Financing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Rongxin Company) and Zibo Qishun Transportation Co., Ltd., Liu Zhonghua, Chen Yuhua, Liu Yongbin, Zhu Jihong, and Zibo Aoxin Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. have made a civil judgment in the case of a dispute over the guarantee and recovery rights. The People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone in Shandong Province has ordered Zibo Qishun Transportation Co., Ltd. to repay the bank advance of 2 million yuan to Rongxin Company within ten days of the judgment coming into effect, Pay a penalty of 1 million yuan for breach of contract; Liu Zhonghua, Chen Yuhua, Liu Yongbin, Zhu Jihong, and Zibo Aoxin Economic and Trade Co., Ltd. shall be jointly and severally liable for the above payments.

After the civil judgment came into effect, Liu Yongbin and others failed to fulfill their repayment obligations. On June 18, 2015, Rongxin Company applied for compulsory execution to the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone, which filed a case for execution. The enforcement court issued an enforcement notice to Liu Yongbin and repeatedly searched for contact. Liu Yongbin and his relatives intentionally avoided and refused to fulfill their payment obligations. On September 10, 2015, the enforcement court issued a detention decision, taking detention measures against Liu Yongbin. Ten "95 Supreme" brand cigarettes, one LV bag, and six boxes of tea were found in the Audi sedan he drove on a daily basis. On the day of Liu Yongbin's detention, under the coordination and organization of the court, Liu Yongbin reached a settlement agreement with the applicant for enforcement. The agreement stipulates that Liu Yongbin shall pay 500000 yuan before September 10, 2015, and 500000 yuan before September 25 of the same year. The remaining balance and interest shall be paid approximately 100000 yuan per month from October of the same year until fully paid. The minimum payment for three consecutive months shall not be less than 300000 yuan. If Liu Yongbin fails to make the payment within the prescribed time limit, he shall voluntarily bear corresponding legal responsibilities. After the agreement was signed, Liu Yongbin failed to fulfill his obligations as stipulated in the agreement, and Rongxin Company filed a complaint with the public security organs. The public security organs issued a notice of non filing to Rongxin Company on September 14, 2015. On September 18 of the same year, Rongxin Company filed a private lawsuit with the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone.

After trial, the People's Court of Zibo High tech Development Zone found that the company controlled by Liu Yongbin was operating normally with a monthly income of 20000 to 30000 yuan. However, after the civil judgment came into effect and during the execution period of this court, Liu Yongbin did not actively negotiate repayment matters with the applicant for execution, and there were still behaviors such as driving high-end cars, using high-end consumer goods, and living in high-end housing, Especially after reaching a settlement agreement with the applicant for enforcement under the auspices of the court, if the applicant still fails to perform according to the agreement, it should be deemed that he has the subjective intention of refusing to execute due to his ability to do so. Considering that Liu Yongbin reached a new settlement agreement with the private prosecutor during the court trial, some of the funds have already been paid, and the private prosecutor agrees to impose a lighter punishment on him, he may be subject to a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. The court sentenced Liu Yongbin to six months' imprisonment and one year's probation for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling.

（2） Typical significance

The enforcement court shall promptly investigate and collect evidence related to the refusal of the person subjected to enforcement due to their ability to perform, and actively guide the parties to exercise their right to sue and report cases in accordance with the law. After the parties file a private prosecution, the filing department, criminal trial department, and enforcement agency of the enforcement court strengthen communication and coordination, quickly file a case, conduct a timely trial, and make a judgment in accordance with the law to urge the defendant to repay the debt. In less than 6 months from the execution of this case to the conclusion of the private prosecution criminal case, the executing court made full use of legal means to severely punish the refusal to execute the crime in accordance with the law, effectively promoting the execution of the case, and effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant for execution.

Case 4: Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu Refusing to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution refuses to report on their personal property status, but still builds their own housing during the execution process and is capable of execution, but refuses to execute. The applicant for execution files a private prosecution with the people's court, and the person subjected to execution is sentenced to a suspended sentence

（1） Basic facts of the case

In June 2011, Yuan Chaoyu contracted the construction of Song Baotong's house, and both parties agreed that Song Baotong would not be responsible for any accidents that occurred during the construction. During the construction, Yuan Chaoyu subcontracted the construction of the support shell and ring beam to Yang Xiantao, who hired Li Gensheng and others to work. On August 12, 2011, Li Gensheng and others were working under the construction site gantry. Due to a machine malfunction, Li Gensheng was injured. Later, Li Gensheng sued Yuan Chaoyu, Yang Xiantao, and Song Baotong to the People's Court of Yanshi City, Henan Province. The People's Court of Yanshi City issued a civil judgment (2011) Yanzhen Minchu Zi No. 486, confirming that Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao compensated Li Gensheng for various losses of 795700 yuan, and Song Baotong compensated Li Gensheng for losses of 3000 yuan (fulfilled). Later, Li Gensheng sued again for the cost of the second surgery. The People's Court of Yanshi City issued a civil judgment (2013) Yan Min Liu Chu Zi No. 308, ruling that Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao would compensate Li Gensheng for various expenses such as the second surgery, totaling 4706.02 yuan. After the judgment came into effect, Li Gensheng applied to the People's Court of Yanshi City for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The execution court delivered a property report order to Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu, requesting the declaration of personal property status, and included them in the list of dishonest defendants in accordance with the law, limiting their high consumption, and conducting inquiries on their bank deposits, vehicles, and property information. Yuan Chaoyu's bank deposit of 8649 yuan was frozen. Due to Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao's refusal to report on their personal property status, Yuan Chaoyu did not provide a reasonable explanation for the corresponding deposits, and the enforcement court took detention measures against them in accordance with the law.

The enforcement court also found that Yuan Chaoyu was a construction team contractor who worked near Yanshi City for many years and claimed to earn around 3000 yuan per month. On June 6, 2014, Yuan Chaoyu's son got married, and Yuan Chaoyu spent over 20000 yuan on his son's wedding banquet. Yang Xiantao demolished his own house and rebuilt a new one in early 2015. The executors repeatedly summoned him to court, considering that his house had already been demolished, and demanded that he immediately stop construction after the first floor of the new house was capped. However, Yang Xiantao failed to stop construction as required and continued to build a two-story house and renovate the first floor house. For the execution of this case, Yuan Chaoyu and Yang Xiantao stated that they would pay a maximum of 10000 yuan.

During the execution of the case, Li Gensheng requested that Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu be held criminally responsible for their refusal to commit the crime. The execution court guided them to submit complaint materials to the local public security bureau and provided feedback on the execution of the case to the public security organs. After examination, the public security organs issue a notice of refusal to file a case. Li Gensheng then filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Yanshi City, which accepted it in accordance with the law and made an arrest decision against Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu.

During the trial of the private prosecution case, the families of Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu actively negotiated with Li Gensheng and quickly reached an execution settlement agreement, paying Li Gensheng 66000 yuan in a lump sum, and the execution case was closed. Li Gensheng then issued a written understanding to Yang Xiantao and Yuan Chaoyu to the People's Court of Yanshi City. After trial, the court sentenced Yuan Chaoyu to one year and six months in prison, with a two-year probation, for the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling in accordance with the law; Yang Xiantao was sentenced to six months in prison with a one-year probation.

（2） Typical significance

Yang Xiantao, the subject of this case, built and renovated a new house during the execution process. Yuan Chaoyu, the subject of the execution, has a certain amount of deposit in the bank and is a contractor with a fixed income. Both of them have the ability to fulfill their obligations but refuse to do so. They refuse to report their personal property status, and after taking detention measures, they still do not repent. They should be held criminally responsible in accordance with the law. After filing a complaint with the public security organ with no results, the applicant for enforcement demands that the person being executed refuse to execute the judgment or ruling for criminal responsibility through private prosecution in accordance with the law. Through trial, on the one hand, the criminal behavior of refusing to execute is punished, and on the other hand, it also promotes the person being executed to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment in a timely manner, promoting the smooth conclusion of the case.

Case 5: Liao Changnian's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

If the person subjected to enforcement has the ability to execute the effective ruling but refuses to do so, the applicant for enforcement files a private prosecution with the people's court. Both parties voluntarily reach a settlement agreement, and the person subjected to enforcement receives the understanding of the private prosecutor and is exempted from criminal punishment

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a civil loan dispute between Xu Jiashun and Liao Changnian, the People's Court of Jiangle County, Fujian Province issued a civil mediation agreement (2013) with the number of civil mediation letters (JMCZ No. 254), confirming that Liao Changnian and others repaid the loan of 300000 yuan and interest to Xu Jiashun. After the civil mediation agreement came into effect, due to Liao Changnian and others failing to fulfill their repayment obligations, Xu Jiashun applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for execution. The enforcement court issued an enforcement ruling to enforce the mediation agreement and on October 23, 2015, served an enforcement notice on Liao Changnian, requesting him to immediately deliver his sedan with the license plate number Min GS0356 to the enforcement court. The enforcement court also found that Liao Changnian resided in a self built house without property rights, and his personal four storefront room located in Jiangle County was rented for a long time, with a monthly rent of 2600 yuan. In 2014, his village provided him with a subsidy of 158400 yuan. Due to Liao Changnian's refusal to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective legal documents, Xu Jia Shunsui filed a complaint with the public security organ, which issued a decision on rejection to him. On November 26, 2015, Xu Jiashun filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Jiangle County for Liao Changnian's crime of refusing to execute a judgment or ruling.

On December 15, 2015, the defendant Liao Changnian reached a settlement agreement with the private prosecutor Xu Jiashun, agreeing that Liao Changnian would return Xu Jiashun 2500 yuan per month, and obtaining Xu Jiashun's understanding. After trial, the People's Court of Jiangle County found that Liao Changnian had the ability to execute the ruling of the People's Court but refused to execute it, refusing to deliver the property specified in the execution ruling, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Considering that Liao Changnian was able to truthfully confess the facts of his refusal to commit the crime and the circumstances of the crime were minor, a settlement agreement has been reached with the private prosecutor, and the other party's understanding has been obtained, allowing him to be exempted from criminal punishment. Based on this, the People's Court of Jiangle County sentenced Liao Changnian to be exempted from criminal punishment for refusing to execute judgments or rulings.

（2） Typical significance

The person subject to execution in this case is fully capable of executing the execution ruling made by the people's court for the execution of the effective mediation agreement, but the person subject to execution refuses to fulfill the execution obligation, which constitutes the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. Given the minor circumstances of the person being executed refusing to execute the crime, and during the trial of the private prosecution case, a settlement agreement was reached with the private prosecutor, obtaining their understanding, and they can be given a lighter punishment.

Case 6: Ke Wenshui's Refusal to Execute Judgment and Ruling Private Prosecution Case

The person subjected to execution has the ability to fulfill but refuses to fulfill the repayment obligation. The applicant for execution files a private lawsuit with the people's court in accordance with the law, and both parties voluntarily reach a settlement agreement. The applicant for execution applies for withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the people's court rules to approve the withdrawal of the lawsuit

（1） Basic facts of the case

In the case of a civil loan dispute between Xiao Hui and Ke Wenshui, the People's Court of Jiangle County, Fujian Province issued a civil mediation agreement (2014) with the number of civil mediation letters (JMCZ No. 893), confirming that Ke Wenshui and others repaid Xiao Hui a loan of 1.6 million yuan and interest. After the mediation agreement came into effect, due to Ke Wenshui and others failing to fulfill their repayment obligations, Xiao Hui applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County for compulsory execution, and the court filed a case for enforcement. The enforcement court made an enforcement ruling to enforce the effective mediation agreement, confiscating one Odyssey sedan with a license plate number of Min G98552 under the name of Ke Wenshui, and requesting that the sedan be delivered to the enforcement court. But Ke Wenshui still uses the vehicle and refuses to deliver it to the court for execution. Xiao Hui then filed a complaint with the public security organs, which issued a decision not to accept it.

On December 15, 2015, Xiao Hui filed a private prosecution with the People's Court of Jiangle County, demanding that Ke Wenshui be held criminally responsible for refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On December 20, 2015, Ke Wenshui and Xiao Hui reached a settlement agreement, agreeing that Ke Wenshui would repay the debt to Xiao Hui within a certain period, and obtaining the understanding of the private prosecutor. During the trial of the case, Xiao Hui voluntarily applied to the People's Court of Jiangle County to withdraw his private prosecution. The People's Court of Jiangle County has made a ruling approving the withdrawal of the lawsuit.

（2） Typical significance

During the execution of the case, the applicant actively collects relevant evidence of the person being executed refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. If the conditions for private prosecution are met, the criminal responsibility of the person being executed will be pursued through the private prosecution procedure in accordance with the law, which will have a certain deterrent effect on the person being executed and force the person being executed to actively negotiate a solution for the execution of the case. If both parties have reached a settlement, the person being executed has obtained the understanding of the private prosecutor, and the private prosecutor requests withdrawal of the case, According to legal provisions, the people's court shall allow the private prosecutor to withdraw the lawsuit.