All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

In full view of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and violation of the rules of evidence) and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant A agreed to recognize the security deposit for the lease of the instant singing book to Defendant B for the purpose of preserving investment funds. Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the lessor around February 2014 and occupied and operated the instant singing book. After that, Defendant B entered into a lawsuit against Defendant B with the lessor and subsequently, Defendant B entered into a false contract for the instant sublease in order to be exempted from the enforcement of the winning judgment, and the fact that Defendant B transferred possession of the instant singing book by subleting the instant singing to Defendant A is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, as long as the Defendants falsely prepared the instant sub-lease agreement, the risk of interference with the compulsory execution by the complainant has already occurred.

Therefore, the circumstance that the execution of the instant singing delivery was not carried out even without the instant sub-lease agreement does not obstruct the establishment of the crime of escape from compulsory execution.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts of violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below which stated that "the facts charged of this case" was rewritten.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the records of the instant case, the lower court determined that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that the Defendants conspired to commit fraudulent acts with the intent to escape compulsory execution, thereby excluding reasonable doubt that the Defendants attempted to produce possessory right to singing in the instant case.

For the reasons that it is difficult to see that the Defendants were acquitted.

1) According to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor drafted a false sub-lease agreement between the Defendants on January 8, 2015, and accordingly, Defendant B was Defendant A.