The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts that the defendant could not conduct the business in the name of the defendant, and only changed the name of the business operator to F in order to continue to conduct the business, but did not intend to evade compulsory execution and did not intend to evade compulsory execution.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

B. The crime of evading compulsory execution under Article 327 of the Criminal Act of the judgment of the party concerned is established when the creditor is harmed by concealing, destroying or transferring property or by falsely bearing the obligation under specific danger to be subject to compulsory execution.

The term "disciding property" refers to the concealment of property to a person who conducts compulsory execution, which makes it impossible or difficult to detect the property, and includes cases where the location of the property is unknown, as well as cases where the ownership of the property is unclear.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant purchased timber of an amount equivalent to KRW 9,341,310 in the victim’s name around October 201 and a promissory note (bill E) issued and delivered as of November 2, 201 to the Defendant’s personal name as of November 25, 201; ② the victim presented the said promissory note to the Defendant on January 25, 201, but was refused to pay the said amount, and the Defendant demanded the Defendant to pay the said amount on the ground that the Defendant would not pay the amount of KRW 9,341,310 in the victim’s name during the actual operation of both C and I, who are the Defendant’s representative, around October 2011.