“用公开促公正 建设核心价值”主题教育活动

拒不执行生效判决、裁定典型案例

目录

1.庄新建申请强制执行民权小乔酒店有限公司案

2.王翼军拒不执行判决、裁定案

3.杨宏余拒不执行判决、裁定案

4.朱兴福拒不执行判决、裁定案

5.庞国发拒不执行判决、裁定案

一、庄新建申请强制执行民权小乔酒店有限公司案

（一）基本案情

2014年11月3日，民权小乔酒店有限公司因购置酒店配套设施及内部升级改造，急需资金，向庄新建借款1800万元，借款期限20天, 并由民权小乔食品有限公司、李冰冰、魏明胜承担连带保证责任。借款期限到期后，借款人未按照合同约定，按期归还所借款项。申请人庄新建于2014年11月24日向商丘市睢阳区公证处申请出具与被申请人民权小乔酒店有限公司签订的具有强制执行效力的执行证书。经商丘市睢阳区公证处审查，庄新建所提申请符合法律规定，随于2014年11月25日为庄新建出具了（2014）商睢证字第060号执行证书。

执行证书生效后，申请人多次催促被申请人履行还款义务，被申请人仅偿还本金750万元。经多次催要无果后，申请人庄新建于2015年4月7日向商丘市中级人民法院申请强制执行，2015年5月21日商丘市中级人民法院将此案移送民权县人民法院执行。

（二）执行情况

民权县人民法院受理此案后，采取了以下措施：

首先送达手续、查控财产。执行人员接受案件后，一方面及时向被执行人民权小乔酒店有限公司、担保人民权小乔食品有限公司、李冰冰、魏明胜送达了执行通知书、被执行人权利义务告知书、财产报告令等有关法律文书；另一方面查控被执行人的财产状况，及时对被执行人所在公司所持股权进行查封。第三，向被执行人讲明有关法律规定，督促被执行人在规定期限内履行义务以及拒不履行的法律后果。

其次利用网络查控被执行人信息并及时将其列为失信被执行人。该案受理后，利用网络查控被执行人信息，经查询，被执行人在银行没有大额存款。又对被执行人房产情况进行查询，也没有重大发现。在被执行人未按照规定期限履行义务的情况下，及时把被执行人列为失信被执行人，以及在有关电子屏幕上公布其失信的情况，限制其高消费，以督促其积极主动履行义务。在被告知其列为失信被执行人时，被执行人极为紧张，因为被执行人作为一个企业，其声誉高于一切，为此，被执行人积极与申请执行人进行协商，主动与申请人沟通，作出解决案件的高姿态。

最后做好说理教育工作。在执行规程中，被执行人没有按照规定期限履行义务，执行人员及时传唤被执行人，对其说理释法，讲明有关执行法律规定，拒不履行的法律后果等，让被执行人明白拒不履行的法律后果，被执行人在执行人员有理有据的教育说服下，很快拿出解决方案，并积极主动与申请人协商，达成执行和解，及时履行了其应尽的义务，案件执结。

（三）典型意义

执行法院将失信被执行人名单信息录入最高人民法院失信被执行人名单库，统一向社会公布，并同时通过报纸、广播、电视、网络等其他方式予以公布。被执行人作为企业，迫于社会压力，为维护其在经济交往中的名声，主动向执行法院表示尽快履行义务，失信被执行人名单制度的信用惩戒功能得以有效发挥。

二、王翼军拒不执行判决、裁定案

（一）基本案情

2006年12月起，常永花、杨忠、王福军等人先后到和平区法院立案执行，要求被执行人辽宁同创房屋开发有限公司返还购房款。执行过程中，王翼军明知该公司已被法院判决归还他人钱款且在多次收到执行通知书的情况下，于2011年4月15日将公司所有的位于沈阳市和平区文安路58号负1层房屋以8,866,400元的价格低价变卖，并在取得卖房款后仍不履行判决内容，擅自向与同创房产公司无关的段连发支付，几经催要未果，最终致使已生效的民事判决书无法执行。

（二）裁判结果

沈阳市和平区人民法院经审理认为，王翼军在法院判决、裁定生效后，将其财产予以变卖，所得款项支付给他人，而对人民法院已经发生法律效力的判决拒不履行，致使法院的判决无法执行，情节严重，其行为已构成拒不执行判决罪，公诉机关指控成立。依照刑法有关规定，以拒不执行判决罪判处王翼军有期徒刑二年。宣判后王翼军表示服从判决结果，未提起上诉。

（三）典型意义

王翼军作为辽宁同创房屋开发有限公司的总经理，完全有能力执行生效法律文书给付购房款。但执行中其在明知判决归还他人钱款且多次收到执行通知书的情况下，不仅拒绝、阻碍执行，甚至将财产变卖、将所得款项用于支付他人，直接造成判决无法执行的后果。王翼军的上述行为主观上有抗拒执行的故意，情节恶劣、后果严重，有较大的社会危害性。通过本案，如果王翼军在接到法院通知后能够正确认识到规避执行的法律后果，主动履行判决确定的义务，就不会被移送公安机关。正是由于自身存在一定的侥幸心理，试图通过转移财产牟取利益、其行为破坏了法院正常的执行秩序，本人最终为抗拒执行付出了应有的法律代价。

王翼军案属于典型的有履行能力却拒不执行的情形，正是在公安机关启动了刑事追责程序之后，王翼军受到了相应处罚，相关权利人的合法权利得到了维护。在当前抗拒、逃避执行现象多发、执行难问题突出的背景下，人民法院依法打击拒执行为显得尤为必要，对实现判决内容，维护司法秩序、增强司法权威、提高司法公信力具有重要的导向作用。

三、杨宏余拒不执行判决、裁定案

（一）基本案情

2010年10月23日，年仅7岁的霍某到本村村民家新盖的房屋屋顶玩耍，在玩耍过程中不慎触碰到房顶的10千伏高压线被击伤。经滇西司法鉴定中心鉴定：1、霍某右肩关节9.2cm处以远肢体缺失的目前损伤达五级伤残、被高压电烧伤所致的增生性疤痕百分比面积为13%，目前损伤达九级伤残。2011年9月29日原告霍某诉请判令被告大理供电有限公司、杨宏余及房主杨某某共同承担赔偿责任。

2011年12月12日大理市人民法院判决由被告杨宏余赔偿199353.99元，扣除已支付的15000元，实际再支付184353.99元；由被告大理供电有限公司赔偿199353.99元；由被告杨某某赔偿133235.99元。2012年8月24日霍某申请强制执行。经多次督促，被执行人杨宏余拒不履行赔偿义务。执行过程中查明,被执行人杨宏余开办有个体工商企业大理宏余铸造厂，该厂按期纳税，运行状态正常；其名下登记有机动车两辆；被执行人在案发后还建盖了一幢五层住房（建筑面积约1000平方米）。

2012年9月25日大理市人民法院对被执行人进行司法拘留15日，拘留期满，被执行人仍不履行赔偿义务。2014年8月28日，执行人员向被执行人杨宏余送达了将其纳入失信被执行人名单的《执行决定书》，2014年10月21日执行人交纳了执行款10000元，对余款174353.99元其仍以各种理由拒绝履行。

（二）裁判结果

被执行人杨宏余长期拒不履行生效裁判文书确定的义务，其行为已涉嫌拒不执行判决、裁定罪， 2014年12月12日大理市法院将该案移送大理市公安局立案侦查， 2015年1月31日大理市检察院向大理市人民法院提起公诉，指控杨宏余犯拒不执行判决罪。在该案审理过程中被执行人杨宏余如实供述自己的犯罪事实并自愿认罪，其家属积极筹措、支付了全部赔偿款项并取得了受害人的谅解，大理市人民法院遂做出对被告杨宏余拒不执行判决罪，判处有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年。

（三）典型意义

本案被执行人在被人民法院司法拘留后仍然对抗执行，明明有财产可供执行，却故意拖欠逃避执行，其已经构成拒不执行判决、裁定的行为，情节严重，应依法追究相应刑事责任。

四、朱兴福拒不执行判决、裁定案

（一）基本案情

2011 年10 月28 日，宜良县人民法院判决被告朱兴福、李琼芳返还原告付某等二人不当得利人民币24 万元，判决生效后，朱兴福、李琼芳一直未执行该判决，2011年12 月19 日，申请人向人民法院申请强制执行。2012年1 月29 日，被告人朱兴福因拒不执行生效判决被法院司法拘留15 天，后因被执行人朱兴福无财产可供执行，2012年12月6日终结了本案的执行程序，申请人多次来法院申请本案的恢复执行。法院查明：朱兴福曾向其女儿朱家梅和女婿计永辉各转账10 万元，且计永辉的银行卡仍有5 万余元，2015年2月，法院恢复了案件的执行，裁定追加朱家梅和计永辉为被执行人，并冻结了计永辉的银行卡及李琼芳的银行卡。之后，朱兴福仍不执行人民法院判决，宜良县人民法院将已冻结的11 万元执行款发放给付某等二人。被告人朱兴福等人仍未返还剩余的13 万元给付某等人。

（二）裁判结果

法院审理认为，被告人朱兴福对人民法院的判决有能力执行而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已触犯了《 中华人民共和国刑法》 第三百一十三条之规定，构成拒执罪，依法对被告朱兴福判处有期徒刑一年。

（三）典型意义

本案被执行人朱兴福有一定能力执行生效判决，但其转移财产行为，性质恶劣，社会危害性较大，依法应予惩戒。宜良县人民法院为进一步使案件的审理公开透明，主动接受人大、政协和社会的监督，特邀请部分人大代表、政协委员、人民陪审员及当地群众50 余人参加旁听，并下发了《 关于拒不执行判决、裁定罪的相关法律规定》 宣传资料，通过案件的审理让旁听群众从中认识到法院判决、裁定的重要性，拒绝执行法院生效的判决、裁定是要受到刑事责任追究的。

五、庞国发拒不执行判决、裁定案

（一）基本案情

桦南县农村信用社因被告人庞国发贷款75 000元到期未归还而诉诸法院，经桦南县人民法院调解双方达成调解协议：庞国发于2011年11月30日归还借款。协议到期后，庞国发未履行调解协议，桦南县农村信用合作联社申请法院强制执行。2014年10月21日桦南县人民法院裁定依法对庞国发家的50吨水稻予以查封，同年11月份，庞国发私自将被查封的水稻变卖，销售得款11万余元，除归还桦南县信用社借款2万元外，其余款项用于偿还个人债务，致使裁定无法执行。

另查明，被告人庞国发到案后已经将执行款人民币90 000元交到桦南县人民法院执行局。

（二）裁判结果

黑龙江省桦南县人民法院经审理认为，被告人庞国发有能力执行裁定而拒不执行，情节严重，其行为已经构成拒不执行裁定罪，依法应予惩处。公诉机关指控被告人庞国发犯拒不执行裁定罪，事实清楚，证据确实、充分，指控罪名成立。被告人庞国发到案能如实供述犯罪事实，并主动履行了部分执行义务，且此次犯罪系初犯，故对其可从轻处罚并适用缓刑。依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第三百一十三条、第六十七条第三款、第七十二条、第七十三条第二款、第三款之规定，判决如下：被告人庞国发犯拒不执行裁定罪，判处有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年。

（三）典型意义

近年来，全国法院生效文书执行难的情况日益严重，失信被执行人以各种方法逃避执行，使权利受到侵害的债权人，拿着法院的生效判决，却得不到实际履行。人民法院用刑事审判这把利剑，惩处了一批拒执案件，有效的保障了债权人的合法权益得到履行，也有效的惩治了诚信缺失的不良社会风气。

Theme Education Activity on "Promoting Justice and Building Core Values through Openness"

Typical Cases of Refusal to Execute Effective Judgments and Rulings

catalogue

1. Zhuang Xinjian's Application for Compulsory Enforcement of Civil Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd

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

3. Yang Hongyu's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

4. Zhu Xingfu's refusal to execute judgments and rulings

5. Pang Guofa's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

1、 Zhuang Xinjian's Application for Compulsory Enforcement of Civil Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd

（1） Basic facts of the case

On November 3, 2014, Minquan Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd. urgently needed funds for the purchase of hotel supporting facilities and internal upgrades. It borrowed 18 million yuan from Zhuang Xinjian for a period of 20 days and was jointly and severally guaranteed by Minquan Xiaoqiao Food Co., Ltd., Li Bingbing, and Wei Mingsheng. After the loan term expires, the borrower fails to repay the borrowed item on time as agreed in the contract. The applicant Zhuang Xinjian applied to the Suiyang District Notary Public Office in Shangqiu City on November 24, 2014 for the issuance of a mandatory execution certificate signed with the respondent Renquan Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd. After examination by the Suiyang District Notary Office in Shangqiu City, it was found that the application submitted by Zhuang Xinjian meets legal requirements. On November 25, 2014, a (2014) Shang Sui Zheng Zi No. 060 execution certificate was issued for Zhuang Xinjian.

After the execution certificate came into effect, the applicant repeatedly urged the respondent to fulfill their repayment obligations, and the respondent only repaid the principal of 7.5 million yuan. After multiple unsuccessful reminders, the applicant Zhuang Xinjian applied for compulsory execution to the Shangqiu Intermediate People's Court on April 7, 2015. On May 21, 2015, the Shangqiu Intermediate People's Court transferred the case to the Minquan County People's Court for execution.

（2） Implementation status

After accepting this case, the People's Court of Minquan County took the following measures:

First, deliver the procedures and inspect the property. After accepting the case, the execution personnel promptly served the execution notice, notice of rights and obligations of the executed person, property report order, and other relevant legal documents to the executed People's Rights Xiaoqiao Hotel Co., Ltd., Guaranteed People's Rights Xiaoqiao Food Co., Ltd., Li Bingbing, and Wei Mingsheng; On the other hand, investigate and control the property status of the person subjected to execution, and promptly seal up the equity held by the company where the person is located. Thirdly, explain the relevant legal provisions to the person subjected to execution, urge the person to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, and the legal consequences of refusal to do so.

Secondly, use the internet to investigate and control the information of the executed person and promptly list them as dishonest executed persons. After the case was accepted, the information of the executed person was investigated and controlled online. After investigation, it was found that the executed person did not have a large deposit in the bank. Further inquiries were conducted on the property situation of the executed person, but no significant findings were made. In the event that the person subjected to execution fails to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, the person shall be promptly classified as a dishonest person, and their dishonesty shall be disclosed on relevant electronic screens to limit their high consumption and urge them to actively fulfill their obligations. When told that he was listed as a dishonest defendant, the defendant was extremely nervous because as a company, his reputation was above all else. Therefore, the defendant actively negotiated with the applicant for execution, actively communicated with the applicant, and made a high stance to resolve the case.

Finally, do a good job in reasoning education. In the execution regulations, if the person subjected to execution fails to fulfill their obligations within the prescribed time limit, the execution personnel shall promptly summon the person subjected to execution, explain the relevant legal provisions, explain the legal consequences of refusal to perform, etc., so that the person subjected to execution can understand the legal consequences of refusal to perform. With the education and persuasion of the execution personnel, the person subjected to execution quickly comes up with a solution and actively negotiates with the applicant to reach an execution settlement, Promptly fulfilled its obligations and the case was resolved.

（3） Typical significance

The executing court shall enter the list of dishonest executed persons into the list of dishonest executed persons of the Supreme People's Court, publish it uniformly to the public, and publish it through newspapers, radio, television, internet, and other means at the same time. As an enterprise, the person subjected to enforcement, under social pressure, actively expresses to the enforcement court to fulfill their obligations as soon as possible in order to maintain their reputation in economic exchanges. The credit punishment function of the list system of dishonest persons subjected to enforcement can be effectively played.

2、 Case of Wang Yijun Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

Since December 2006, Chang Yonghua, Yang Zhong, Wang Fujun and others have successively filed a case in the Heping District Court for enforcement, demanding that the person being executed, Liaoning Tongchuang Housing Development Co., Ltd., return the purchase price. During the execution process, Wang Yijun was aware that the company had been sentenced by the court to repay others' money and had received multiple execution notices. On April 15, 2011, he sold off the company's property located at No. 58 Wen'an Road, Heping District, Shenyang City, on the first floor at a low price of 8866400 yuan. After obtaining the selling price, he still did not comply with the judgment and sent a payment without authorization to Duan Lian, who was not related to Tongchuang Real Estate Company. After several attempts to urge him, he was unsuccessful, Ultimately, the effective civil judgment cannot be enforced.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Heping District, Shenyang City found that Wang Yijun sold his property and paid the proceeds to others after the court's judgment and ruling came into effect, but refused to comply with the legally effective judgment of the people's court, resulting in the court's judgment being unable to be executed. The situation was serious and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. The prosecution charges were established. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, Wang Yijun was sentenced to two years in prison for refusing to execute the sentence. After the verdict was pronounced, Wang Yijun stated that he complied with the verdict and did not file an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

As the general manager of Liaoning Tongchuang Housing Development Co., Ltd., Wang Yijun is fully capable of executing effective legal documents to pay the purchase price. However, in the process of execution, they not only refuse or obstruct the execution, but also sell their property and use the proceeds to pay others, directly resulting in the inability to execute the judgment, knowing that the judgment has been returned to others and receiving multiple execution notices. The above behavior of Wang Yijun subjectively has the intention to resist execution, with severe consequences and significant social harm. Through this case, if Wang Yijun could correctly recognize the legal consequences of evading execution after receiving a notice from the court and proactively fulfill the obligations determined by the judgment, he would not be transferred to the public security organs. It is precisely because of my own lucky mentality that I attempted to seek benefits through the transfer of property, which disrupted the normal execution order of the court. In the end, I paid the due legal price for resisting execution.

The Wang Yijun case is a typical case of having the ability to fulfill but refusing to execute. It was precisely after the public security organs initiated the criminal accountability procedure that Wang Yijun was punished accordingly, and the legitimate rights of the relevant rights holders were safeguarded. Against the backdrop of frequent resistance, evasion of execution, and prominent difficulties in execution, it is particularly necessary for people's courts to crack down on refusal of execution in accordance with the law. It plays an important guiding role in achieving the content of judgments, maintaining judicial order, enhancing judicial authority, and improving judicial credibility.

3、 Case of Yang Hongyu Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 23, 2010, Huo, who was only 7 years old, went to play on the roof of a newly built house in his village. During the play, he accidentally touched the 10 kV high-voltage line on the roof and was injured. According to the appraisal by the Western Yunnan Judicial Appraisal Center, the current percentage of hypertrophic scars caused by Huo's right shoulder joint at a distance of 9.2cm is 13%, and the current level of injury is 9%. On September 29, 2011, the plaintiff Huo filed a lawsuit to order the defendants Dali Power Supply Co., Ltd., Yang Hongyu, and the homeowner Yang to jointly assume compensation liability.

On December 12, 2011, the People's Court of Dali City ruled that the defendant Yang Hongyu would compensate 199353.99 yuan, deducting the 15000 yuan already paid, and actually paying 184353.99 yuan; The defendant Dali Power Supply Co., Ltd. shall compensate 199353.99 yuan; Defendant Yang will compensate 133235.99 yuan. On August 24, 2012, Huo applied for compulsory execution. After multiple urging, Yang Hongyu, the executed person, refused to fulfill his obligation to compensate. During the execution process, it was found that the person being executed, Yang Hongyu, had established an individual industrial and commercial enterprise, Dali Hongyu Foundry, which paid taxes on schedule and operated normally; There are two registered motor vehicles under its name; The executed person also built a five story house (with a building area of approximately 1000 square meters) after the incident.

On September 25, 2012, the People's Court of Dali City held the executed person in judicial detention for 15 days. After the detention period, the executed person still failed to fulfill his obligation to compensate. On August 28, 2014, the execution personnel delivered the "Execution Decision Letter" to the executed person Yang Hongyu, which included him in the list of dishonest executed persons. On October 21, 2014, the execution personnel paid an execution fee of 10000 yuan, but refused to fulfill the remaining amount of 174353.99 yuan for various reasons.

（2） Judgment results

The executed person Yang Hongyu has long refused to fulfill the obligations determined by the effective judgment document, and his behavior has been suspected of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment or ruling. On December 12, 2014, the Dali City Court transferred the case to the Dali Public Security Bureau for investigation. On January 31, 2015, the Dali City Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with the Dali City People's Court, accusing Yang Hongyu of the crime of refusing to execute the judgment. During the trial of the case, Yang Hongyu, the defendant who was executed, truthfully confessed his criminal facts and voluntarily confessed. His family actively raised and paid all compensation and obtained the victim's understanding. The Dali City People's Court subsequently convicted the defendant Yang Hongyu of refusing to execute the judgment and sentenced him to six months in prison with a one-year probation.

（3） Typical significance

The person subjected to execution in this case still opposes execution after being judicially detained by the people's court, intentionally delaying and evading execution despite having property available for execution. This has constituted a refusal to execute the judgment or ruling, and the circumstances are serious. Corresponding criminal responsibility should be pursued in accordance with the law.

4、 Zhu Xingfu's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 28, 2011, the People's Court of Yiliang County ruled that the defendants Zhu Xingfu and Li Qiongfang would return the plaintiff Fu and other two individuals an unjust enrichment of RMB 240000. After the judgment came into effect, Zhu Xingfu and Li Qiongfang had not executed the judgment. On December 19, 2011, the applicant applied to the People's Court for compulsory execution. On January 29, 2012, the defendant Zhu Xingfu was detained by the court for 15 days for refusing to execute the effective judgment. Later, due to the fact that the defendant Zhu Xingfu had no property to execute, the execution process in this case was terminated on December 6, 2012. The applicant came to the court multiple times to apply for the resumption of execution in this case. The court found that Zhu Xingfu had transferred 100000 yuan each to his daughter Zhu Jiamei and son-in-law Ji Yonghui, and Ji Yonghui's bank card still had over 50000 yuan. In February 2015, the court resumed the execution of the case, ruling to add Zhu Jiamei and Ji Yonghui as the defendants, and froze Ji Yonghui's bank card and Li Qiongfang's bank card. Afterwards, Zhu Xingfu still did not execute the judgment of the people's court, and the People's Court of Yiliang County distributed the frozen execution funds of 110000 yuan to the two individuals. The defendant Zhu Xingfu and others have not yet returned the remaining 130000 yuan to a certain person.

（2） Judgment results

The court held that the defendant Zhu Xingfu had the ability to execute the judgment of the people's court but refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior violated Article 313 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, constituting the crime of refusal to execute. The defendant Zhu Xingfu was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in accordance with the law.

（3） Typical significance

The person executed in this case, Zhu Xingfu, has a certain ability to execute the effective judgment, but his transfer of property is of a bad nature and poses significant social harm, and should be punished in accordance with the law. In order to further make the trial of the case open and transparent, the People's Court of Yiliang County actively accepts the supervision of the National People's Congress, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and society, and invites more than 50 representatives of the National People's Congress, members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, people's assessors, and local people to participate in the hearing. It also issued promotional materials on the "Relevant Legal Provisions on the Crime of Refusing to Execute Judgments and Rulings", which made the audience realize the importance of court judgments and rulings through the trial of the case, Refusing to enforce a court's effective judgment or ruling is subject to criminal accountability.

5、 Pang Guofa's Refusal to Execute Judgments and Rulings

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Huanan County Rural Credit Cooperative appealed to the court due to the defendant Pang Guofa's loan of 75000 yuan not being repaid upon maturity. After mediation by the Huanan County People's Court, both parties reached a mediation agreement: Pang Guofa returned the loan on November 30, 2011. After the agreement expired, Pang Guofa failed to fulfill the mediation agreement, and Huanan County Rural Credit Cooperative Union applied to the court for compulsory execution. On October 21, 2014, the People's Court of Huanan County ruled to seal up 50 tons of rice owned by Pang Guofa in accordance with the law. In November of the same year, Pang Guofa privately sold the sealed rice and received over 110000 yuan in sales proceeds. In addition to repaying the loan of 20000 yuan from the Huanan County Credit Cooperative, the remaining funds were used to repay individual debts, making the ruling unenforceable.

Furthermore, it was found that the defendant Pang Guo had already handed over the execution amount of RMB 90000 to the Executive Bureau of the Huanan County People's Court upon arrival in the case.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huanan County, Heilongjiang Province found that the defendant Pang Guofa had the ability to execute the ruling but refused to execute it. The circumstances were serious, and his behavior constituted the crime of refusing to execute the ruling and should be punished according to law. The prosecution accuses the defendant Pang Guofa of refusing to execute the verdict. The facts are clear, the evidence is accurate and sufficient, and the charges are established. The defendant Pang Guofa was able to truthfully confess the facts of the crime in the case and voluntarily fulfilled some of the execution obligations. Moreover, this crime is a first time offender, so he can be given a lighter punishment and suspended sentence. According to the provisions of Article 313, Article 67, Paragraph 3, Article 72, Article 73, Paragraph 2, and Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows: The defendant Pang Guofa commits the crime of refusing to execute the ruling and is sentenced to six months' imprisonment with a one-year probation.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, the situation of difficulty in executing effective documents in courts across the country has become increasingly serious. Those who violate their trust and are executed have used various methods to evade execution, causing creditors whose rights have been infringed upon to hold the effective judgments of the court but cannot be actually fulfilled. The people's court has used the sharp sword of criminal trial to punish a number of cases of refusal to execute, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of creditors and punishing the bad social atmosphere of lacking integrity.