The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant paid the price for the delivery of automobile parts to C does not constitute a “harbor” in the crime of evading compulsory execution, but the defendant's payment to C does not constitute a “cambing,” in view of the defendant's own ability at the time. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of evading compulsory execution, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant is the representative director of (ju)D who is supplied with the automobile parts by C, and the above C is a person who operates E to process and supply the automobile parts.

C fails to pay KRW 104,016,356, after receiving a bill discount from the victim F, and on the basis of the above obligation, C was determined to seize and collect the claim amounting to KRW 31,73,494, out of the supply price to be received from the Defendant by the Changwon District Court 2009TT5705, Sept. 1, 2009. On April 9, 2010, C was determined to seize and collect the claim amounting to KRW 72,282,862, out of the supply price to be received by the Defendant from the Defendant.

In collusion with C, the Defendant concealed C’s property by remitting KRW 104,016,356 from September 30, 2009 to July 12, 201 at the D office located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, Seoul, to C for the purpose of evading compulsory execution as above.

B. The court below held that the defendant's act does not constitute concealment of the crime of evasion of compulsory execution by integrating the evidence in its judgment and finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.