The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely submitted the list of property prepared by inquiring of the law office as it is to the court, and merely did not state the provisional seizure claim that is not entered in the list of property because it has no actual value and has no intention to submit the false list of property to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that there was a claim entered in the facts charged at an investigative agency and the registration of provisional seizure of real estate accordingly, stated that the above claim and the provisional seizure were not entered in the list of property (the title of the Investigation Record No. 89). Even if based on the Defendant’s statement, it is deemed that the Defendant submitted a false list of property knowing that the Defendant had property at the time of submitting the list of property in this case, so it is sufficiently recognizable

Although the Defendant alleged that the registration of the above claim and provisional seizure that were not entered did not have any property value, the Defendant knew that they did not enter them. However, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable ground to independently determine whether the Defendant is subject to entry in the property list, regardless of practical value, in the property list to be submitted to the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8153, Apr. 1, 2007). Thus, the above assertion merely

B. Although the defendant is deemed to have no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, the crime of this case is the creditor's property right.