The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only lent Q’s business name to K, and did not know that Q bears the obligation to K while operating Q. On January 3, 2013, changing the name of the operator of a restaurant in the name of the Defendant’s wife was due to the genuine intent to transfer the business to the wife, and the Defendant’s change in the name of the operator of the restaurant in the name of the Defendant’s wife was not based on the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment by changing the facts charged into the following (2). Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

(2) The revised Defendant is a person who operated a restaurant in Gyeonggi-gun D from October 15, 200 to around October 15, 200.

The Defendant, on October 12, 2012, delivered to the Defendant a payment order issued by Suwon District Court on October 15, 2012, to the effect that the Defendant, from around October 2012, the Defendant used the building materials leased from the victim C, and did not pay rent KRW 22,981,295, and that the Defendant demanded the payment of the said rent to the employees from the victim, and that the Defendant would pay the said rent to the victim.

On January 3, 2013, the Defendant applied for a change of business registration name to change the name of the above restaurant F in order to evade compulsory execution by making it clear about the ownership relationship of the corporeal movables located in the above E-cafeteria at Ischeon-si, Leecheon-dong, 486, and the Defendant changed the business registration of the above restaurant in the name of the wife F.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed corporeal movables in order to escape compulsory execution.

(3) However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

(b).