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.