The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have the intent or intent to evade F’s compulsory execution, and that the Defendant transferred real estate to E for the payment of the price for labor, and thus does not constitute false transfer.

2. Determination:

A. In the crime of evading compulsory execution, false transfer means a change in the name of ownership of property by taking the form of transfer on the surface despite the absence of actual intention of transfer. The crime of evading compulsory execution is established when a person bears a false obligation with the concealment, damage, false transfer, or false obligation under the specific risk of being subject to compulsory execution as the so-called crime of danger. It does not necessarily mean that the result of the damage to the obligee or that of the actor does not necessarily lead to the crime of evading compulsory execution.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2056 delivered on October 14, 1994, 98Do1949 delivered on September 8, 1998, and 2001Do4759 delivered on November 27, 2001, etc.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim F, who was the lessee of the first and second floor of Kimpo-si, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the refund of lease deposit and consolation money as Seoul Southern District Court 2008da91085, Apr. 15, 2009, "the defendant shall pay F the amount of KRW 30 million up to May 31, 2009, but if the payment of the above money is delayed, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the date following the date of payment until the date of full payment shall be paid." The above decision was finalized as it becomes final and conclusive on May 8, 2009. Meanwhile, the defendant filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the fraudulent act against the defendant's other creditor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer against DD and building that was his own land and building before the above decision was rendered to K on August 14, 2008.