The judgment below

The part concerning the 3 crime in the judgment shall be reversed.

For the crimes of No. 3 of the judgment of the defendant, four months of imprisonment.

1. Regarding the gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing), regarding the evasion of compulsory execution, “The property including the claim for the return of the deposit money for the lease of the building in which K was located, as the property of the non-corporate association of K, not the Defendant, was originally owned by the Defendant, and thus, reported the closure of the business and the new non-profit corporation to be “M”

The defendant's property is not concealed.

The argument of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles was withdrawn.

The sentence of the lower court (the crime No. 1 and No. 2 of the holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, and the crime No. 3 of the holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the first and second crimes as indicated in the judgment, the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime is favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant acquired the deposit of the sub-lease to the victim by sub-lease the rental house without the deposit for the rental house to be returned. The amount of the damage was not so much and the amount of damage equivalent to KRW 90 million was deposited in the original trial but remains without recovery so that the victim still desires to be punished, and taking into account the circumstances of the crime, methods and results, the circumstances after the crime, the age of the defendant, and various sentencing conditions in the record, such as the defendant's sexual behavior, it cannot be deemed unfair because the punishment of this part of the original court is too large.

3. The same year among the facts charged concerning the evasion of compulsory execution in the trial by the prosecutor ex officio with respect to the part concerning the crime No. 3 of the holding.

6.8. The same part of “the report of non-profit corporation” with the trade name “M” for the same purpose at the same place”

6. 8. In the same place, a non-profit corporation reported at the same time as “M”, and around that time, an application for changes to the name of the lessee of the above place of business changed from the Defendant to the Defendant’s wife,” and this court granted permission and subject to the judgment.