A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the Defendant stated to an execution officer that “no property of Co., Ltd. exists” merely because it merely expresses its opinion, which does not constitute “harbor,” which is the form of the crime of evading compulsory execution.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of evading compulsory execution based on the misapprehension of legal principles is established when a creditor is harmed by concealing, destroying, transferring, or falsely bearing a property for the purpose of evading compulsory execution. Here, the term “cambing” refers to having a person who executes compulsory execution make it impossible or difficult to discover the property, and includes not only cases where the location of the property is unknown but also cases where the ownership of the property is unclear (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1987, May 10, 1983; 92Do1653, Dec. 8, 1992). It does not necessarily mean that it should be an act to the same extent as it bears a false obligation.

Therefore, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to accept the above misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant presented a business registration certificate of G Co., Ltd. with the above place of business to the execution officer who intends to enforce compulsory execution at C’s place of business, and falsely speaks that the above place of business does not have any property of C constitutes concealment as it makes it unclear about the ownership of

B. The defendant's judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the confession and reflects on the crime of this case, and C Co., Ltd. is as stated in the judgment of the court below.