1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to occupational embezzlement, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. On the evasion of compulsory execution

A. Article 327 of the Criminal Act aims to protect the rights of creditors who are imminent in compulsory execution by punishing “a person who has injured creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring, falsely debts with the intent to escape from compulsory execution.” Thus, the subject of the crime of evading compulsory execution should be the subject of compulsory execution or preservative measure under the Civil Execution Act among the debtor’s property.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do187 Decided April 25, 2003; 2010Do4129 Decided December 8, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do4129, Apr. 25, 2003)

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below held that the defendant concealed the apartment of this case by completing a registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale in T's name even though he did not purchase the apartment of this case for the purpose of evading this case because he is likely to be forced to purchase the apartment of this case in his own name after purchasing at 183,000,000 the 10-dong 803 apartment of Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") in the public service center of the Gwangju District Court on November 25, 2009, the court below held that the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale in T's name because he could be forced to be forced from the victim company in relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his own name with respect to the apartment of this case.