The defendant is a victim C and a person related to the second generation relationship.

On August 21, 2013, when the Defendant had been liable to the victim for a monetary transaction from around 1989, the Defendant prepared and executed a notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 100 million for the victim. On March 5, 2014 based on the above notarial deed, the victim recovered the amount of KRW 36 million from June 2014 upon receipt of the Defendant’s convenience store credit seizure and collection order.

On June 23, 2014, the Defendant had changed the name of the convenience store in the name of D with the intent to evade compulsory execution with the knowledge that it is likely to be subject to further compulsory execution on the sales claim, and evaded compulsory execution with the title of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused and D by the prosecution;

1. The following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the process related to the change of the lessee of the convenience store in this case, was directly managed by the Defendant instead of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant continues to directly manage the sales account, such as the convenience store deposit account in the name of the son after the change of the name of the convenience store in this case; (b) there was no particular change in the trade name before and after the change of the name; (c) the Defendant was able to find a circumstance in which the amount of money deposited in the above account was consumed for his own personal purpose; (d) the Defendant was given a donation of KRW 60 million from the Defendant’s mother’s child to settle the Defendant’s debt and received a transfer of the convenience store in this case. However, it is objective to support such circumstances such as financial transactions.