The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 15,00,000 and by a fine of KRW 7,00,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) Each of the corporeal movables No. 1, 3 through 5, 7, 8, 11, 15 through 21, 24 through 26, and 29 listed on the attached list of movables listed in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “each of the movables convicted in the 1 list”).

(1) Defendant B was owned by Defendant B, and the corporeal movables listed in [Attachment 2] List of Movables as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment (hereinafter referred to as “each of the two lists”).

(2) On October 13, 2016, Defendant A offered each of the above corporeal movables as a security for transfer by borrowing KRW 10 million from Defendant B as of October 13, 2016. Thus, inasmuch as there was no false transfer or concealment of each of the above corporeal movables for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment, the lower court which convicted the Defendants by mistake of facts and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Each of the corporeal movables Nos. 2, 6, 9, 10, 12 through 14, 22, 23, 27, and 28 listed on the attached list of movables listed in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as “each of the movables not guilty of the list No. 1”).

(2) Although Defendant A owned, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant B appeared to have been used on or before April 2016. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 10 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that each of the first and second categories of movable property and the second list of movable property are owned by Defendant A, or at least jointly owned by Defendant A, and even if considering the details of financial transactions between the Defendants, they cannot be deemed as owned by Defendant B, and the Defendants’ intent to escape compulsory execution and to commit a crime is sufficiently recognized.