All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Regarding the facts charged in the case of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A did not have confirmed whether or not Defendant A bears monetary liability against Defendant A at the time of the instant case, and even if the monetary liability was to be borne, Defendant A was sufficiently capable of paying the monetary liability. Thus, as stated in this part of the facts charged, even if Defendant A completed the establishment registration or the registration of transfer of ownership on each real estate to Defendant B, it cannot be deemed that there was harm or risk of harm to C, and thus, Defendant A does not constitute a crime of evasion of compulsory execution. (2) As to the facts charged in the case of 2019 Highest 2045, 2019 Highest 2045, Defendant A did not engage in a financial transaction under the name of Defendant A.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of a suspended sentence, 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of a suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination on the evasion of compulsory execution 1) It is reasonable to interpret that compulsory execution stipulated in Article 327 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the crime of evading compulsory execution, includes not only compulsory execution, but also provisional seizure and provisional disposition, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to the crime of evading compulsory execution, as well as execution of provisional seizure and provisional disposition. If an act prescribed in the above Article is performed in a situation where there is a specific risk of being subject to execution through such preservative measure, the crime of evading compulsory execution shall be established. Even if a conditional claim is conditional, the creditor does not have any legal obstacle to preserving the claim as a preserved right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do1544, Jun. 12, 1984). This legal principle also applies where there has already been legal relations that form the basis of establishing a claim with respect to future claims.

Therefore, even though the right to claim property division is between the parties.