The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The lower court determined that ① the instant creditor did not have a claim against K (hereinafter referred to as “K”), and that the existence of a claim that constitutes the element of the crime of evading execution is difficult to be recognized, and ② the instant machinery (hereinafter referred to as “the instant machinery”) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court did not constitute a property subject to compulsory execution, etc., and acquitted the instant creditor on the ground that the instant machinery (hereinafter referred to as “the instant machinery”) could not be deemed as a property subject to compulsory execution, etc.

However, in the event that a company is a debtor, if the company has concealed the company's property, the actual operator may also be the subject of the crime of evading compulsory execution, so the defendant who is the representative of K or representative of K is also subject to the crime of evading compulsory execution, and the machinery of this case constitutes K's property.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor's ex officio decision on the appeal by the prosecutor against the judgment of the first instance court (the judgment of the second instance, the defendant).

In the first instance of the trial, a prosecutor shall regard the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and delete “the name of the defendant” of the 9th act, and the facts charged are as follows.

As stated in the paragraph, the application for changes in the bill of amendment was made, and this court permitted the changes in the subject of the trial.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the facts charged prior to the alteration (which was changed from the trial to the primary facts charged) are still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, we examine this.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged.

-3) As seen in paragraph (d), the Defendant entered into a sales contract on June 1, 2016 with respect to the instant machinery between W andO, and at the time, the Defendant entered into a sales contract.