The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (see Articles 1 and 2(1)1 of the facts charged) and expectations that an advertising owner and a credit card company may receive an advertisement payment and sales claim continuously from the credit card company are not subject to compulsory execution or preservative measures under the Civil Execution Act. Thus, even if they were to do so, it does not constitute a crime of evading compulsory execution.

B) Defendant A, while operating the J, established N Co., Ltd. at the same address and operated it in the name of N Co., Ltd.

The above two companies are the same companies in fact, and since J's house cryp et al. were located in the above location, the ownership relationship of movable properties in the place of business became unclear.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, Defendant A’s property was concealed.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) Defendant B did not take over the right to expect advertising prices and sales claims of N Co., Ltd., but did not acquire the right to expect advertising prices and sales claims, Defendant B registered the business as “P” and continued to operate the business independently from the previous N Co., Ltd.

In addition, P’s sale is merely 2 to 3% of the sale of N Co., Ltd., and the transfer of such sale is not aimed at evading compulsory execution.

3) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service order, Defendant B: fine of 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine refers to a property that is the object of a crime of evading compulsory execution, which is the object of a debtor’s property, that the creditor can regard as a subject of compulsory execution or preservative measure under the Civil Execution Act, among the debtor’s property. Even in the future right, if the debtor’s future right is sufficiently indicated or determined with respect to the debtor’s future claim between the debtor and the third debtor, it shall be deemed that the property falls under the property (Supreme Court Decision 20