The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts cannot be deemed to have concealed property for the Defendant to be exempted from compulsory execution, even if the Defendant excluded the full amount of lease deposit under the lease agreement concluded in the name of the Defendant’s mother, and there is sufficient property to repay the Defendant’s debt to the victim.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In the crime of evading a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, false transfer means changing the ownership name of the property by taking the form of transfer on the surface despite the absence of the actual intention of transfer, and the concealment means that a person who executes compulsory execution makes it impossible or difficult to discover the debtor's property. If there is a risk that a creditor's property may be harmed by such act, the crime of evading compulsory execution is established, and the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established, even though it causes damage to the creditor in reality.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant using KRW 40 million out of the dividend that the Defendant received, as a deposit, as a deposit for lease, and is in cash custody of the dividends remaining after the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s obligation. Even if the Defendant is in custody of the cash, it constitutes “concepting” as an act of unclear ownership of property and its location, and thus, constitutes “concepting.” In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act is at risk of undermining the victim, who is the obligee.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. The defendant is the primary offender of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the crime of this case is recognized.