The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant could be found to have lent his name to E for the purpose of evading taxes, the court below found the defendant not guilty. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The Defendant was a beauty artist and the Defendant was a representative in the name of the store (D; hereinafter “cosmetic”) located on the Suwon-gu B and the first floor from August 13, 2015 to November 24, 2018.

No one shall allow another person to register a business using his/her name for the purpose of evading taxes or evading compulsory execution, nor allow another person to run a business by using another person's name.

Nevertheless, on August 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) made documents necessary for the registration of beauty room business operators to E, who are a senior policeman, and (b) allowed C, who is registered in the name of the Defendant, to run a business using another person for the purpose of evading taxes from August 13, 2015 to November 24, 2018.

3. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty, the main purpose of which is as follows

① That is, the fact that the Defendant allowed E to use the name of the Defendant to register the beauty room in the name of the Defendant and to operate the business is that the Defendant did not bear the facility gold, etc. even after the registration of the business operator, the Defendant worked in the same manner as that of the shop, and the Plaintiff did not share the loss even after the enemy was generated. The beauty room of this case was operated by E without being registered in the name of the Defendant even before the change of the business registration in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant appears to have been aware of such fact.