The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who actually runs C and D in the Daegu Northern-gu building B.

From December 2, 2008 to March 2010, the Defendant supplied the amount equivalent to 25,136,200 won at the market price of taxation from creditors E Co., Ltd. (F) and did not pay the amount, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C Co., Ltd. (Representative: G) and D (Representative: H) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “existing Corporation”) operated by the Defendant of the obligee Co., Ltd. (the representative director”) with the Daegu District Court Decision 2010Ka67521 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “existing Corporation”) and won the judgment. On July 20, 2010, the Defendant provisionally seized 41 items, such as corporeal movables in the original form, installed in the above building C, as C Co. and D Co.

On August 17, 2010, the Defendant, while knowing the risk of compulsory execution as above, changed the name of C Co., Ltd and D corporation to I Co., Ltd. (Representative Directors: G, Auditor: H), and changed the name of the corporation to J (Representative Directors: G, Auditor: H) on May 2, 201, and changed the ownership of the said corporeal movables into the name of the corporation on May 2, 201.

In order to escape compulsory execution, the defendant concealed the property by making it unclear about the ownership of the property subject to compulsory execution.

B. 1) The concealment of property in the crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act refers to the impossibility or difficulty of a person executing compulsory execution in finding the property impossible or difficult. It includes not only cases where the location of the property is unknown but also cases where the ownership of the property is unclear (see, e.g., Supreme Court).