All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Unless it is recognized that there is a claim such as the right to claim property division of E on the apartment of this case, and even if there is no other property sufficient to secure the execution of the claim, the act of transferring the apartment of this case cannot be deemed to have a risk of undermining the creditor. Since the defendants actually transferred the apartment of this case to the intent to dispose of it, it does not constitute a false transfer, and there is no fact that the defendant A conspired to transfer it with the defendant B.

B. The act of transferring the apartment of this case by a legitimate act constitutes a justifiable act of exercise of rights for the purpose of protecting the property based on the ownership of Defendant B, in a situation where the claim against Defendant B is not recognized even though it was not continuously asserted.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the crime of evading compulsory execution is established or not is a crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act, which is a crime of avoiding compulsory execution under the objective condition that is likely to be subject to compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition under the Civil Execution Act, the existence of a claim is a danger of undermining creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring, or bearing false debts for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the circumstance in which creditors are showing the attitude to institute a lawsuit for compulsory execution or preservation. It does not necessarily mean that the consequence detrimental to creditors is not caused, or that an actor commits an offense of evading compulsory execution is not established, and where an act of false transfer, etc. is conducted for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the condition that there is a risk of undermining creditors, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3184, Jun. 26, 2008).