All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant A has no obligation to the victim E (hereinafter “victim”).

B. At the time of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security and the transfer of the right to collateral security, there was no objective situation in which the said right is subject to compulsory execution, and there was no risk of undermining the victim, who is the creditor.

Defendant A was actually liable to Defendant B, a prospective director, U.S., and Defendant B. Thus, Defendant B was transferred the instant right to collateral security. Thus, the instant right to collateral security is not a false transfer.

Applicant B did not know of the establishment of the instant right to collateral security and the transfer of the right to collateral security, so there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime with Defendant A.

(v) the Defendants had no intention or intention to evade compulsory execution.

⑹ 그럼에도 불구하고 원심은 사실을 오인하여 이 사건 공소사실을 유죄로 인정하였다.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in October, and two years of suspended execution and eight hours of community service in June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The crime of evasion of compulsory execution under Article 327 of the relevant legal principles is a dangerous crime, namely, the crime of evasion of compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is established when there is a risk of undermining the obligee by concealing, destroying, transferring property, or bearing false debt, for the purpose of evading subjective compulsory execution under the state where the obligee appears to have been able to bring an action for compulsory execution or provisional seizure under the Civil Procedure Act, namely, the crime of evasion of compulsory execution under Article 327 of the relevant legal principles. It does not necessarily lead to the consequence that

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do875 Decided May 28, 2009).