The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 327 of the Criminal Act aims to protect the rights of creditors who are imminent in compulsory execution by punishing “a person who has damaged creditors by concealing, destroying, transferring or falsely bearing any property with the intent to escape from compulsory execution.” Thus, the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution should be that the creditor from among the debtor’s property may take the object of compulsory execution or preservative measures under the Civil Execution Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do187 Decided April 25, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4129 Decided December 8, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2034 Decided April 26, 201, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, “the 11st floor of the lower judgment on the 4th and 12th floor above the ground” appears to be a clerical error.

The Defendants were granted a building permit, but the Defendants were able to know the fact that the construction was suspended after completion of the structural construction from the H to the N Co., Ltd. at the time of November 4, 2010. Thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant building at that time can be subject to compulsory execution or preservative measures under the Civil Execution Act.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deliberate and decide whether the building in this case is subject to compulsory execution or preservative measure under the Civil Execution Act at the time of changing the name of the owner of the building in relation to the building in this case, and held that the building in this case can be the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution only for the reasons as stated in its reasoning and found the whole facts charged of this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution, which led

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.