Among them, the part against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is in the original agreement of Suwon District Court.

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the facts charged in this case against Defendant A was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of evading compulsory execution, the act of a political party, and the recognition of illegality, or by misapprehending

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal have different cases and are not appropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. As to the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged against Defendant C is as follows.

On July 12, 2013, the victim N (hereinafter “victim”) was sentenced to partial winning in the lawsuit claiming the return of the membership fee against M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”).

Accordingly, as M is at the risk of being subject to compulsory execution from the damaged party, Defendant C was deposited into the account of the Slive Savings Bank under the name of Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) on April 21, 2014 in collusion with Defendant A and the joint Defendant B (hereinafter “B”).

M’s operating capital KRW 110,00,545 was remitted (hereinafter “B”) to a corporate bank account (hereinafter “B”) in the name of B, and made it impossible for creditors, such as victims, etc. to enforce compulsory execution against M’s property.

Accordingly, M's property was concealed in order to escape compulsory execution.

B. The lower court acquitted ex officio the Defendant on the following grounds.

Defendant

C had already opened the Defendant C’s account for the purpose of deposit of the M’s operating fund before winning the lawsuit claiming the return of the membership fee raised by the victim against M.

Defendant .