The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal (hereinafter "G") falsely transferred to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "H") claims equivalent to KRW 1.88 billion against L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "L") held in the name of a third party M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "M"), which can be deemed as a material asset, in the event that the assets at the time of the instant case were in excess of KRW 5 billion and the liabilities amounting to KRW 7.9 billion are not repaid to K with the debt amounting to KRW 7.9 billion, while the assets at the time of the instant case were in excess of the debt amounting to KRW 5.9 billion, and in the event that the creditors who had the title of the judgment in favor of winning the lawsuit were unable to repay the debt amount to K, the lower court did not err in misapprehending the purpose of debt exemption and reimbursement for the purpose of evading the claim collection, and it is sufficiently persuasive in that the Defendants’ objection to the purport that only changing the name of transfer cannot be deemed as a material transfer contract.

2. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that Defendant A is the former representative director of G and H, and G and H hold approximately 100% shares in each of them as Defendant A’s pro-friendly chairperson of the IJ, and in fact, Defendant B is an individual company, Defendant B is the chief secretary of the J president and the chief secretary (director). Defendant C is the chief secretary of the J president and the chief secretary of the J secretary-general.

K, a creditor of G, filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the loan of KRW 3 billion against G around 2008 and received a final judgment in favor of the G around June 2009.