The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not enter the claims of 14.7 billion won against C in the property specification procedure in the property list, even though it had been the claims of 14.7 billion won against C. However, since C was already closed at the ex officio of the competent tax office, it is thought that the claims against the above company do not have property value and did not enter them in the property list, there was no intention in violation of the Civil Execution Act, and thus, a claim without such property

(2) In addition, even if the elements for constituting a crime of violation of the Civil Execution Act are satisfied, the illegality is dismissed as there is no awareness of illegality, since the claim without property value should not be stated in accordance with the legal advice of the counsel of the court below at the time of the property specification procedure, and the claim against C is not stated.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion that there is no intention or no claim is subject to specification of property, all the property subject to compulsory execution should be entered in the list of property to be submitted by the debtor to the court in accordance with the property specification procedure under the Civil Execution Act (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153 Decided November 29, 2007). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant intentionally submitted the list of property by omitting his/her claim against C in the property specification procedure is recognized.