The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was unaware of the meaning of the submission of a property list, submitted a false property list, and had no intention to submit a false property list to the Defendant.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant thought that the deposit account in which the Defendant was attached and the insurance termination refund under the name of the insured does not constitute a crime even if it was not entered in the inventory, and that such mistake constitutes a mistake in the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, even though he/she owns each deposit and insurance termination refund as stated in the judgment of the court below, submitted a false property list by failing to enter it in the property list, and that the defendant has awareness or intent that he/she violates the Civil Execution Act by submitting a false property list to the court. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s determination on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not enter each deposit and insurance termination refund in the property list.

Even if this constitutes a mere site of law, and it does not constitute a crime under the law, and it does not constitute a case where there is a legitimate ground for misunderstanding. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles can also be accepted.