All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendants (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) did not constitute a crime of escaping from compulsory execution, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Defendant A (Cheating in Sentencing)’s punishment for Defendant A (an amount of KRW 3 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

① around October 201, Defendant B requested G to remove buildings and construct neighboring neighborhood living facilities in Gyeyang-gu P and one parcel (hereinafter “instant construction”). G had completed the instant construction work before February 2013 and had completed the construction of new buildings inspected.

② On November 13, 2012, Defendant B prepared and executed a certificate of monetary consumption lending and borrowing contract (No. 1163, 2012, hereinafter “Fair Deed”) that recognizes the compulsory execution of G with respect to the obligation of KRW 150,000,000,000 for the construction payment of the instant construction project, Defendant B, who was obligated to pay, until December 13, 2012, on which the interest of KRW 150,000 is paid by December 13, 2012, and the interest of KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment is additionally paid, and consent to the provisional seizure of the principal’s property if it is necessary to secure a claim even before the date of payment.

However, when the owners of Goyang-gu R Housing and P and one parcel of non-party 1 are unable to receive a secured loan due to credit problems, a letter of payment for the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as "written payment of this case") with the content that "if the owners of Goyang-gu R and P are unable to receive a secured loan, all rights, including the F property rights in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, were transferred to G."

③ Since then, G decided to transfer the claim against Defendant B to H, G, H, and Defendant B.