The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Among the facts charged in the instant case, evasion of compulsory execution.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although F and B entered into the instant construction contract on November 6, 2014, which was operated by misunderstanding of facts D, F and B entered into the said contract, the said contract was reversed by entering into the instant construction contract with F and B, which was operated by the Defendant, on January 1, 2015.

D only introduced the instant construction work to the Defendant and received the introduction fee, and only completed the construction work as the contractor of the instant construction work by the Defendant’s management I, as the contractor of the instant construction work, and had the claim for the construction cost as to B.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, which found F as the contractor of the instant construction project and convicted each of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The Defendant, as the representative of I Co., Ltd., the contractor of the instant construction, reported a lien based on a legitimate title, and the Defendant did not constitute a crime of interference with auction because there was no intention to interfere with auction.

The defendant applied for the payment order against B to pay the construction cost, and there was no purpose of evading compulsory execution.

Since there is no fact that the defendant conspired with other creditors to evade compulsory execution on the real estate owned by B, he shall not be subject to the ratio of evasion of compulsory execution.

The defendant did not make a false statement against his memory and did not have any intention of perjury.

C. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below as to the assertion of obstruction of auction, mistake of facts about perjury, and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant reported false lien in the name of the company I, thereby hindering the fairness of auction by deceptive means, and making a false statement against memory.