2. Determination

A. The first instance court found Defendant A not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved that Defendant B had transferred the instant stocks to the G Co., Ltd., the representative director of which Defendant B was the representative director, in a false manner, to the G Co., Ltd., and there is no reasonable doubt.

B. In the crime of evading compulsory execution of the pertinent legal doctrine, “a false transfer” means a change in the name of the property by taking the form of transfer on the surface despite the absence of actual intention of transfer. Thus, even if a transferor or a transferor by Jin-in, took place for the purpose of evading compulsory execution and brought disadvantages to creditors, it does not constitute a false transfer of the crime of evading compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Do382, Jul. 27, 1982). Moreover, the establishment of criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, the determination shall be made in the interest of the defendant, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or unfolded.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487 Decided April 28, 2011, etc.). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged based on the record based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant share sales contract appears to have been transferred by intention, even if the prosecutor considered various doubtful circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal.