All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unfair that Defendant A’s punishment (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, although Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to bear false liability with intent to evade compulsory execution at the time of the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, it can be acknowledged that at the time of the instant case, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate as if Defendant B borrowed KRW 410 million from Defendant A and completed the establishment of a collateral security right with the maximum amount of KRW 50 million to Defendant A’s real estate on the basis of the certificate, and, upon Defendant B’s request, notified Defendant A of the deposit account number at the request of Defendant A, and again, in the process of lending KRW 150 million to Defendant A upon Defendant A’s request, Defendant A was released KRW 150 million from the money deposited in his/her own deposit account in the process of lending KRW 150 million to Defendant A with the above circumstance, and the completion of the registration of the establishment of a collateral security right with the maximum amount of KRW 410 million to Defendant A’s real estate on the basis thereof constitutes a crime of evasion of compulsory execution, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the part of Defendant A’s allegation.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant case’s determination on the Defendants’ unfair argument of sentencing, the sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants is too vague.