The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant actually operated a singing practice room located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant singing practice room”) at the time of November 28, 2013, and the submission of a property list stating that the Defendant does not hold any monetary claim after the transfer of the instant singing practice room constitutes a false property list.

2. On November 28, 2013, the Defendant was present at the Seoul Eastern District Court located in the Seoul Eastern District Court in the Seoul Eastern District Court located in 404, Asansan-ro, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on November 28, 2013 on the date when the said court’s property was named as the creditor C and the debtor when the property was named as the debtor, the Defendant was present on the date when the said court’s property was named as the property. The Defendant was present on the date when the claim was deposited in the credit union deposit account in the name of the Defendant F, and submitted a false list of property without indicating such fact.

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the police interrogation protocol, list of property, output of the progress of the application for specification of property, and copy of passbook transaction in March 6, 2014 against the Defendant; (b) as the business of the instant singing practice room was transferred to G around November 22, 2013, deposited KRW 45 million, such as the refund of lease deposit and premiums, into the deposit account in the FF’s credit union; and (c) subsequent to the Defendant submitted a list of property without stating a claim relation to the said money in the case of an application for specification of property as indicated in the facts charged, it is recognized that the Defendant submitted the list of property without stating a claim relation to the said money in the case of an application for specification of property; (d) the police interrogation protocol (second-time) of March 6, 2014 against the Defendant was denied by the lower court; and (e) it is not admissible by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.