The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was paid by the Defendants to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) under the name of 4 million won to sublease, and the receipts from G to take over the office house from G were prepared. In light of this, the Defendants are sufficiently recognized to have actually carried out or intended to carry out the business with the name of “F,” instead of preparing a false sublease contract for the purpose of avoiding the compulsory execution of delivery of the office of this case to G of the Fast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Fast”).

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The judgment below held that the Defendants concluded a true sub-lease contract with respect to an office located in an industrial complex (hereinafter “instant office”) as stated in the facts charged and concluded a sub-lease contract, notwithstanding various evidence that can be seen as having operated a business, the Defendants attempted to provide a false sub-lessee in order to prevent the enforcement of a sub-lease contract with Defendant B, who attempted to operate an Internet shopping mall business, and accordingly promised to enter into a sub-lease contract with Defendant B with Defendant B to pay the down payment amount of KRW 10 million. However, the Defendants failed to proceed to prepare the sub-lease contract, and the above sub-lease contract was the absence of the above sub-lease contract and eventually failed to actually perform the Internet shopping mall business; ② Defendant B took necessary measures to return the down payment of KRW 10 million and prepared a compulsory execution plan with the execution officer belonging to Daejeon District Court; ③ Defendant B verified that the contents of the instant sub-lease contract were unjust.