1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant B and E shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, it cannot be said that the scope and content of the right to claim division of property is unclear until a specific content is formed by a judgment or adjudication.

Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the act committed before November 21, 2017, upon the victim’s claim for division of property, which became final and conclusive, is not recognized as having the existence of a claim that is the basis of compulsory execution at the time of the said act. Therefore, the crime of evasion

B. In fact-finding (Defendant A, C, and D) Defendant A was actually liable for the loan of KRW 90 million to Defendant C and KRW 43 million to Defendant D.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below that found each of the above obligations guilty of the crime No. 2-A, (c) and (3) on the premise that the above obligations are false obligations is erroneous.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant B: imprisonment for eight months, Defendant C, D, and E: each fine of seven million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to interpret that compulsory execution stipulated in Article 327 of the Criminal Act, which provides for a crime of evading compulsory execution as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, includes not only compulsory execution, but also execution of provisional seizure and provisional disposition. If an act prescribed in the same Article is performed in a situation where there is a specific risk to be executed by such preservative measure, the crime of evading compulsory execution is established. Even if a claim to be executed is conditional, the obligee 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 for establishing a claim with respect to future claims.

Therefore, the right to claim the division of property is.