The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts1) At the time when the Defendant intended to change the name of the head of the Tong, it was impossible for the obligee to have no intention to harm the obligee C, and thus, there was no intention to harm the obligee C. (2) It is impossible to prevent the Defendant from discovering the location of the corporate association B property. The account in the name of the Defendant was disclosed to the players, referees, procers, and other related persons, and thus, it is not concealed the property.

(B) The summary of the arguments by the defense counsel submitted after the expiration of the period for submitting the written appeal shall be determined only to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal stated in the existing written appeal.

In light of the overall circumstances of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the lower judgment (three million won by fine) is more severe.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act in the state of being subject to compulsory execution is established when the creditor damages the creditor by concealing, destroying, falsely transferring or falsely bearing the obligation under a specific risk of being subject to compulsory execution. Here, the situation in which there is a specific risk to be enforced refers to the case in which the creditor files an application for provisional attachment or provisional disposition for the claim for performance or for the preservation of the claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do3141 Decided February 9, 199, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance, C filed a lawsuit against B on August 2010 against it for refusing to apply for license renewal and its players (Seoul East District Court Decision 2010Da14634). The Defendant was aware of the filing of the lawsuit at the end of August 2010, and the Defendant was paid at the Defendant’s account opened a national bank in the name of the Defendant as stated in its reasoning on December 2010.

If so, C, a creditor of B, at the time of opening the above account.