The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who has no purpose to escape compulsory execution, is F and F.

) The Defendant disposed of inventory assets in order to adjust the automatic cash payment business, and the disposal was made in around the end of 2009, much prior to the instant arbitral award result. The Defendant, at the time, failed to anticipate the negative consequences of the instant arbitral award, is deemed to be a “nomethylus” (hereinafter referred to as “noethylus”).

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of disposing of property is a “de facto control” as one of the requirements for recognition of false transfer or concealment of the crime of evading compulsory execution, on the ground that there was no objective risk of being forced to enforce compulsory execution, or that F was aware that the Defendant was liable to assume the obligation to avoid compulsory execution. However, it was unlawful to recognize that the Defendant’s act of disposing of property constitutes a false transfer or concealment of the crime of evading compulsory execution under the criteria of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the concealment of the crime of evading compulsory execution. However, the lower court recognized that the Defendant’s act of disposing of property was a de facto control without expressly stating the requirements, false transfer or concealment, and that it was unlawful to recognize that the Defendant’s act of disposing of property is a false transfer or concealment of the property according to the criteria of the ambiguous de facto control

(I) or I, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “I”);

(AS) and AS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AS”).

corporation or G (hereinafter referred to as “G”)

F exchanges business-related information with one another in terms of business partnership, such as mutual business efficiency and cost reduction, which is merely a ground for human trust between the defendant and K, and the defendant can be said to operate AI or I as part of his own business.