The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is clearly anticipated that the defendant would be subject to compulsory execution, so long as he donated the apartment of this case owned by him to the wife, such donation cannot be deemed as a donation with a truth, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged did not pay KRW 362,698,222 to the injured party C the air conditioners installation cost of the D building at the time of the Government in 2009, and the injured party filed a lawsuit against the accused for the claim for construction cost with the Government District Court around January 7, 2010.

Around September 7, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment that “the defendant shall pay KRW 230,483,591 to the victim,” and the victim shall be the executive title of the first instance judgment and applied for an auction of the E building No. 504, 2404 at the time of Namyang-si owned by the defendant around that time.

However, on November 1, 2012, the Defendant conspiredd to transfer the above apartment owned by the Defendant F and the Defendant to the wife with the intention of evading compulsory execution by completing the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift in the future of the denyingF on the above apartment.

3. The lower court determined as follows: (a) in the crime of evading compulsory execution, the false transfer of property refers to the alteration of the title of property by taking the form of transfer on the surface, even though there is no actual intention of transfer; (b) so, if the property was transferred by a genuine intent, even if it was carried out for the purpose of evading compulsory execution and thereby causing disadvantages to the creditors, it does not constitute a false transfer of the crime of evading compulsory execution; (c) based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court held that the judgment of the first instance, which was declared as provisional execution around September 19, 2012 by the victim as executive title, did not constitute a false transfer of the E-building owned by the Defendant.