The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s wife S, who was in charge of the operation of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”), was established and operated by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) related to the crime of evading compulsory execution, and the Defendant did not participate therein. Even if the Defendant established theO, it does not immediately constitute a crime of evading compulsory execution.

B. The Defendant did not actively prove the falsity of the Defendant’s accusation related to the crime of false accusation, and the Defendant did not have awareness of the falsity of the accusation since the Defendant filed a complaint with an unqualified person under the conviction that the Defendant had committed perjury.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the part of the crime of evading compulsory execution and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed a crime of evading compulsory execution by concealing the property by establishing anO as the actual operator of L and receiving advertising fees in the name of the said company, thereby damaging the obligee.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On November 12, 2012, the Defendant was investigated as a suspect of defamation and attempted threat against E, etc. and served as a representative of L and an editor in the prosecution.

The issuer of documents is the wife S, and the defendant is operating L as a representative.

“A false statement was made by the Defendant at the time of the statement

There is no circumstance to see that there is no motive to make a false statement, and according to L's account transaction details, the defendant was registered as a representative director.

In light of the fact that it seems that S has received higher benefits or money than S, and in light of the fact that S is the wife of the defendant and P, the representative director of theO, is the mother of the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant has established an O as the actual operator of L.

(2)