The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant changed the name of the operator of a restaurant “E” to F is merely a fact that the actual owner of the restaurant was F from the beginning, and that the actual owner of the restaurant was returned to the fact that the Defendant had been in trust in the future. In addition, the Defendant’s act of changing the name of the business operator in F in the future constitutes a true transfer rather than a concealment, and thus, the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the term "conceptment of property" in the crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act means that a person who conducts compulsory execution is unable to discover property or makes it difficult to do so. It includes not only the case where the location of property is unknown but also the case where the ownership of property is unclear, but also the case where the creditor is not required to actually incur losses but also the case where the creditor is at risk of suffering losses (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3387, Oct. 9, 200, etc.). In full view of the circumstances duly adopted and properly explained by the court below, the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, can be recognized that the defendant completed the registration of the business operator in his name as stated in the facts charged, and operated the restaurant jointly with F, and the defendant's act of hiding the name of the operator of the restaurant or the case where the debtor changed the ownership of the sole terminal or the case of compulsory execution into the name of the creditor.

The defendant's act shall be returned to the name of the F in the name of the true owner.