Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts charged regarding the evasion of compulsory execution on or around May 16, 2017, Defendant A1 paid money to the account under the name of the child as stated in the facts charged regarding the evasion of compulsory execution. Since it is merely a repayment of provisional payment to D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant, it does not constitute evasion of compulsory execution, and the Defendant did not have any intention to evade compulsory execution. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if it is not so unfair sentencing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged on the other premise, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the Defendant did not do so, even if he exercised the right of retention over 4 to 5 years for Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the 1.400 million won adjustment agreement was received, taking into account the fact that the Defendant paid the construction cost liability or paid the overdue wages to the employees of the above company, and that the Defendant did not receive the said payment properly after the Defendant’s imprisonment.

B. In full view of the evidence relevant to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B’s wage claim can be sufficiently recognized as false, but on different premise, the judgment of the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge of evading compulsory execution on or around February 23, 2018, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A) was accepted, or even if not, in light of the circumstances after the crime of each of the instant crimes was committed, the nature of each of the instant crimes was very poor and the damage was not recovered, and the sentence of the court below against Defendant A (limited to eight months of imprisonment) is too excessive.