1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants, at the time of changing the name of the owner, misjudgmenting facts or misunderstanding legal principles, were merely completed the 7th floor of the entire 13th floor, and thus cannot be subject to compulsory execution. The name of the owner does not constitute a property subject to compulsory execution. The Defendants were unable to continue the construction under the name of H (hereinafter “H”) and did not change the name of the owner inevitably to change the name of the owner for the purpose of evading compulsory execution and did not change to the intent to evade compulsory execution. However, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged of the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements for the crime of

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (two-year imprisonment each) is too heavy.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 327 of the Criminal Act intends to protect the rights of creditors who are imminent in compulsory execution by punishing “a person who has harmed the creditors by concealing, destroying or falsely transferring property with the intent to escape from compulsory execution, or by bearing false debts.” As such, the object of the crime of evading compulsory execution should be that the creditor from among the debtor’s property may be subject to compulsory execution or preservative measures under

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court prior to remanding the building of this case, the construction permit was granted to the fourth underground floor and the 12th ground, but the Defendants changed the name of the owner of the building of this case from H to N Co., Ltd. as of November 4, 2010, to H from H to N Co., Ltd., and the construction was suspended. Thus, it is difficult to view the building of this case as of November 4, 2010 as subject to compulsory execution or preservative measure under the Civil Execution Act.