A. Defendant A and B (hereinafter “B”) actually contracted the construction of the instant building with a direct contract, and Defendant C merely subcontracted a part of the process, but the lower court found Defendant C guilty of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the lending of construction business name, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (Defendant A and B: each fine of 5 million won, Defendant C: fine of 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The legislative intent of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201) for the purpose of promoting the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, or in light of the relevant provisions of the above Act, which strictly provides for the criteria for license and registration of a construction business to achieve such purpose, and which essential and corely provides for the prohibition of engaging in construction business not only a licensed or registered constructor but also a constructor, the term “act of allowing another person to perform construction works using his/her name or trade name (hereinafter “title lending”)” prohibited by Article 21 of the above Act, means a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood that he/she will use his/her trade name or name for the same purpose while carrying out construction works with his/her own trade name or name as a constructor, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret that all or most of the subcontracted construction works in the name of a constructor (hereinafter “contractor”) is not actually engaged in the construction work.

However, the constructor is now.