All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts is difficult to deem that there was no purpose or intent to evade compulsory execution, and there was a specific risk of being subject to compulsory execution at the time.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime and is likely to be subject to the execution of compulsory execution or provisional attachment under the Civil Procedure Act, namely, under the objective condition that the creditor is showing the attitude to institute a lawsuit for preservation or to bring a lawsuit, there is a risk of undermining the creditor by concealing, destroying, transferring, or bearing false debts for the purpose of evading compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2526, Jan. 26, 1996). The term “concept of property” refers to the situation that makes it impossible or difficult for the person executing compulsory execution to discover the property, and includes not only the case where the location of the property is unknown, but also the case where the ownership of the property is unknown at the time of 100Do387, Oct. 9, 203, 200). According to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the council of occupants’ representatives held office from 200Da13130, supra.