Among them, the part of evasion of compulsory execution by joint criminal conduct against the defendant and the part of the sole criminal conduct on June 30, 2010.

A. A. A prosecutor brought a prosecution against the Defendant and B on charges of evading compulsory execution under the Jeju District Court Decision 201Da5566, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of both the evasion of compulsory execution by the Defendant and B’s joint criminal conduct and the evasion of compulsory execution by the Defendant’s sole criminal conduct, and sentenced the Defendant to a stay of execution for 8 months in imprisonment. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of erroneous sentencing on the entire part and erroneous determination of facts regarding the evasion of compulsory execution by the sole criminal conduct.

On May 6, 2009, the trial prior to remand found the Defendant not guilty of the evasion part of compulsory execution, among the facts charged against the Defendant, and on June 30, 2010, found the Defendant guilty of the evasion part of compulsory execution, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of eight months.

3. As to the evasion portion of compulsory execution on May 6, 2009 by a single criminal act, the prosecutor appealed on the ground of the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evasion portion of compulsory execution on June 30, 2010 by a single criminal act.

The court of final appeal rejected the prosecutor's assertion in the grounds of appeal, and reversed all of the convictions against the defendant on June 30, 2010 on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to concealment of evasion of compulsory execution with respect to the evasion of compulsory execution.

B. According to the scope of the judgment of this court, the exemption from compulsory execution on May 6, 2009 by a single criminal act, which is the acquitted part of the judgment prior to remand, is separated and confirmed, and is not included in the subject of the judgment of this court. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the exemption from compulsory execution by a joint criminal act against the accused and the exemption from compulsory execution on June 30, 2010 by a single criminal act.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The name of the business operator of the “J” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) shall be registered in K, Inc.