The judgment below

Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendants and N have changed the business registration under the name of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) that Defendants and N operated as the same business in Defendant B’s personal name.

D. However, since the provisional seizure of E’s credit card sales credit card sales claims by the Daeyang General Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”), the Defendants and N was unable to operate the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), the Defendants and N was inevitable choice to continue the business, and the change of the name of the business registration does not constitute concealment or false transfer of the crime of evading compulsory execution by the truth.

Referencely, Defendant A did not conspired to commit the instant crime with Defendant A, and the Defendants did not have any intention or intention to evade compulsory execution.

Applicant Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (for Defendant A, six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended sentence for Defendant B, four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 내지 법리오해 주장에 대한 판단 ⑴ 관련 법리 ㈎ 강제집행면탈죄에 있어서의 재산의 은닉이라 함은 강제집행을 실시하는 자에 대하여 재산의 발견을 불능 또는 곤란케 하는 것을 말하는 것으로서, 재산의 소유관계를 불명하게 하기 위하여 폐업 신고 후 다른 사람 명의로 새로 사업자등록을 하는 경우도 포함된다(대법원 2003. 10. 9. 선고 2003도3387 판결 참조). ㈏ 다만, 강제집행면탈죄에 있어서 허위양도라 함은 실제로 양도의 진의가 없음에도 불구하고 표면상 양도의 형식을 취하여 재산의 소유명의를 변경시키는 것이고, 진의에...