A. In fact, the Defendant had no intention to evade compulsory execution, and there was no risk of undermining the obligee, since he had been able to satisfy the claims of the victim with active property held by the Defendant at the time.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles on the escape of compulsory execution.

B. Even if the sentencing is found guilty against the defendant, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant and the defense counsel of the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion,” stated in detail the judgment on the assertion from the last 3rd to 5th 16th 16th 16th son of the lower judgment, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion and convicted the relevant facts charged.

2) The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime and is in danger of being subject to compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition under the objective condition that is practically subject to compulsory execution under the Civil Procedure Act, namely, where a creditor has a risk of undermining creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring or falsely bearing property for the purpose of evading compulsory execution in a state in which he/she is showing the attitude to institute or institute a lawsuit for preservation, the crime is established, and it does not necessarily mean that the result detrimental to creditors or an actor does not necessarily lead to damage to creditors, or that a crime is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3999, Jun. 28, 2012, etc.). B) Examining the reasoning for conviction of the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, closely comparing the evidence and the facts of the lower court.