The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Defendant A is engaged in the clothing trade business on the second floor of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E building with the trade name of F Co., Ltd., and Defendant B is the main part of Defendant A’s Schedule.

Defendant

A was liable for USD 256,866.83 due to the transaction with H, a son of the victim G, from August 2010 to June 2012. On July 31, 2012, A prepared an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement between the victim and the victim that pays USD 20,000 on the last day of each month during four months from August 2012, and KRW 176,86.83 on the last day of December 2012, in the event that the said obligation is not performed, A prepared an authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement between the victim and the victim that pays USD 176,86.83 on the last day of December 2012, 200.

Accordingly, when it is anticipated that the victim would enforce a compulsory execution against the property owned by the defendant when he/she fails to perform his/her obligation, the defendant A conspired with the defendant B to be exempted from the compulsory execution of the victim by means of false transfer by pretending the sale and purchase to the defendant B of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I No. 301 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") on August 2012. On August 27, 2012, the above F office prepared a sales contract with the content that he/she sells the above loan of 250 million won to the defendant B at the above F office, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant B on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to commit a false transfer of the Ba on the part of Defendant A to Defendant B for the purpose of evading compulsory execution.

In the event that the Defendants conspired to act in collusion with the Defendants for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the victim, a creditor, and falsely transferred the instant sales contract, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and thereby acquitted the Defendants.

Judgment

The lower court determined that the money paid by Defendant B to Defendant A was at least KRW 27.7 million.