All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The misunderstanding of the facts by deception did not have the intention to commit the crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the evasion of compulsory execution among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant received retirement reserve funds and used them immediately for the purpose of evading compulsory execution. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too unhued and unfair.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant had the intent to commit fraud.

It shall be fully recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At the time when the Defendant received deposit amount of KRW 45 billion from the injured party, the Defendant had already been liable for loans worth KRW 1.7 billion for the construction cost that was given to the Defendant, and due to the shortage of construction cost, the instant construction site was the state of being provisionally seized from the private provisional construction industry corporation on July 13, 2010, the private provisional construction industry on August 9, 2010, Lebcon Co., Ltd, and on September 13, 2010 (Evidence record 56, 125, 140 pages). (2) The Defendant anticipated that the debris was completed by the prosecution on April 4, 201, and was planned to commence construction work on the completion of the incidental facilities.

The Defendant made a statement (Evidence Nos. 123, 125). However, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would be capable of operating his/her business from April 11, 201, and prepared a pre-paid contract between the victim and the victim during the lease period from April 11, 201 to March 31, 2013. At the time, the de facto server was not completed, and it appears that it was difficult for the Defendant to complete the lease from April 201 due to the shortage of construction cost until April 201.