The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Although the H apartment Nos. 521, 101, 101 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant by the public prosecutor was under title trust with the Defendant’s wife U, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case despite the fact that the Defendant’s property is substantially the Defendant’s property and thus constitutes the property subject to compulsory execution or preservative disposition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court as to whether the instant apartment is the Defendant’s title trust property, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant trusted the title of ownership on the registry of the instant apartment to U on July 3, 200.

① The Defendant stated that the instant apartment was one’s own property in the name of the wife in the police interrogation process regarding the fraud case that was investigated separately.

(Evidence No. 4, 109). ② At the time of purchase of the apartment of this case, the Defendant’s wife was not aware of the fact that the apartment was sold as the home owner.

(No. 4) 3. The apartment of this case was set up a large number of collateral mortgages, including the right to collateral security, a new mutual savings bank, the debtor, K, and the maximum debt amount of 1.2 billion won (Evidence No. 62 of the Evidence No. 4) and most of the defendant's business funds.

B. Whether title trust property is subject to the obligation to prepare a property list or not, the property list to be submitted by the debtor to a court in accordance with the procedure for specification of property under the Civil Execution Act ought to be fully recorded in the property list, regardless of whether there exists any substantial value (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153, Nov. 29, 2007).