The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The real estate listed in the first, second, and third paragraphs of the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts is transferred to F as property division under the condition that F succeeds to the existing loan, while the defendant married between F and F, the husband, around 2010, and F was paid KRW 60 million from F in cash and living expenses in return for the transfer.

In addition, the real estate mentioned in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the decision of the court below, which was held in title trust by the Magman's net director, and was donated to the defendant's children according to the intention of the Magman's net director in the process of divorce.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have made a false transfer of each of the instant real estate in order to evade compulsory execution, and the establishment of a loan claim against the Defendant at the time is not clear. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to evade compulsory execution.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim filed a claim for a loan against the Defendant around March 10, 201; and (ii) the compulsory adjustment was established on May 7, 201, when the said lawsuit was pending, with the payment of KRW 35 million to the victim; (iii) the transfer of each of the instant real estate was conducted between October 201 and July 1, 201, between the Plaintiff and his husband; and (iv) the Defendant transferred the real estate indicated in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the lower judgment to F, who is the husband, to the Plaintiff, by agreement; (iii) the cause for registration of each of the said real estate is not “property division” but “property division”; and (iv) the time when the Defendant claimed for payment of the purchase price may vary by agreement between the date of the sale contract and the date of the property division.