The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant only changed the name of the owner of the instant officetel under the name of the wife in the course of divorce with the wife and did not intend to evade compulsory execution. Therefore, the judgment below convicting the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, as the actual owner of the Busan Dongdong-gu Ctel 401 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), transferred the instant officetel to E with a view to evading compulsory execution on August 28, 2013, when D, who was the lessee, had not returned KRW 10,000,000 for the reason of restoration to its original state, even though he left the office due to the expiration of the period of June 26, 2013.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the macroficial evidence.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the statement by the witness F and the statement of reference materials submitted by the Defendant (a certified copy of the register, divorce-related documents), the Defendant: (a) owned several officetels in his/her and his/her own name and operated the leasing business; (b) agreed to change the name of an officetel in the name of F while making a divorce between F around July 2013; (c) 501, Ctel 201, J building 303, K building 302, and 302, including the instant officetel in the name of F; (d) the Defendant transferred the instant officetel to another person on September 30, 2013; and (e) the instant officetel and the instant officetel established by the Defendant on August 5, 2013; and (e) concluded that the instant officetel and the instant building were registered for transfer of ownership.

The above facts of recognition are shown.