A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the Incorporated Foundation H (hereinafter “ Incorporated Foundation”).

In order to operate a separate deposit account, the creditors of the Incorporated Foundation did not appear to have commenced or brought a lawsuit on the merits or the preservation of the property, and the act of opening a separate deposit account does not constitute “the act of hiding property” in the crime of evading compulsory execution. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) At the time of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant was an employee of the Incorporated Foundation, not a director of the Incorporated Foundation, but did not participate in the resolution of the board of directors, and prepared minutes by attending the board of directors in collusion with co-defendants who were directors. Thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with the lower court. According to the director’s instruction, the Defendant’s act was conducted under the awareness that it was not an act permitted by the law and was not an act permitted by the law, and it does not constitute an offense because there was a justifiable reason for such recognition. 2) The lower

Judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances stated in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants’ act of opening a separate deposit account in the name of “K” and using the money deposited as operating funds, etc. for the purpose of evading compulsory execution is deemed to have a risk of undermining the creditor’s act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and the defendant A's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles