The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles 1) Claims against G (corporate registration number T; hereinafter “1 G”) company H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) and claims for the return of the sub-lease deposit amounting to KRW 4 billion, the claim for the collection order, are invalid due to a false representation. Therefore, the crime of evading compulsory execution is not established on the ground that there is no specific risk to be subject to compulsory execution.

2) Even if the above claim of the injured party is recognized, Defendant A is the representative of Plaintiff G (the corporate registration number U.S. 2, hereinafter “2G”) and the victim’s claim acquired from G is offset against the automatic claim. As a result, the victim’s claim for seizure and collection order does not constitute a crime of evading compulsory execution because there is no claim for the victim’s claim for seizure and collection order.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 26, 2017, which was submitted after September 26, 2017, along with the submission period of the written appeal for determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, reference is to the extent of supplementing the grounds for appeal, and the new argument is not separately determined.

1) The Defendants reversed the confession at the lower court, and asserted that, on that reason, the victim was a confession by mistake because the victim concealed the circumstance where there was no claim intentionally.

It is doubtful that the probative value or credibility of a confession by the defendant in the court of first instance is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of appeal differs from the legal statement in the court of appeal.

In determining the credibility of a confession, the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the reason why the confession was made, and what is the reason why the confession was made, and whether there is no conflict or contradiction with the confession among other evidence than the confession.