The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) As to evasion of compulsory execution, the gold model (hereinafter “gold model of this case”) and Class 3 patent rights, and Class 2 of design right (hereinafter “patent right of this case, etc.”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below had already been offered as security for transfer to other creditors of the defendant company prior to the seizure of movable property as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “movable property of this case”) by the complainant, and the defendant had already transferred the above gold model and patent rights to the other creditors of the defendant company with the consent of the relevant transferor. Thus, at the time of transfer of the gold model of this case and patent rights, the defendant had already not been in an objective state of compulsory execution against each of the above property by the complainant, and at the time of the transfer, the defendant had no criminal intent or purpose for evasion of compulsory execution.

2) At the time, the Defendant had no choice but to transfer the said movable because of the termination of the lease relationship with the place where the instant movable was kept in custody, as to the concealment of the articles kept in custody in the line of duty, and if the complainant pays KRW 3 million, the said movable will be released from seizure.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s transfer of the instant movable property constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms, since the Defendant’s transfer of the instant movable property constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the evasion of compulsory execution

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged 1) The Defendant is a person who actually runs a stock company B (in-house director C; hereinafter “B”) established mainly for the manufacture, sale, etc. of food waste treatment equipment.

On November 12, 2013, the Defendant is not enough to manufacture and supply 1,00 food treatment equipment.