All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit a crime at the time of the Defendant’s vicarious repayment of the Defendant’s obligation to purchase the goods with respect to I, and did not deceiving the victim. In order to prevent the victim from a voluntary auction of his own land provided as a water counsel to I (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant performed a voluntary repayment on his own. Therefore, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, notwithstanding the absence of a relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the Defendant’s vicarious repayment, and there was an error of misunderstanding of the facts and

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. misunderstanding the legal principles of prosecutor 1) The Defendant, as a means to conceal credit card payment, completed the registration of the business operator of “T” in the name of S, which is a kind of transaction on December 9, 2009, and concealed the credit card payment through the U.S. union account from March 18, 201 to May 28, 2015. Thus, such concealment constitutes a crime of evading compulsory execution, including such concealment, constitutes a crime of evading compulsory execution. However, even though the statute of limitations has not expired as of March 22, 2016, the date of the instant indictment, the date of the registration of the above business operator, as of December 9, 2009, the starting point of the statute of limitations period, and acquitted this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and the legal principles, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime.

It is not unreasonable to regard it as well, and the relationship between the defendant's deception and the victim's subrogation repayment is fully recognized.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(i)..