A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendants subcontracted the instant construction work to H, etc., but this is based on the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”).

(2) In light of relevant laws and practices, etc., the Defendants did not have any awareness of illegality. 2) The respective sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: fine of KRW 8 million; fine of KRW 5 million; fine of KRW 5 million for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence against Defendant A by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the same purport, but the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part of “judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this is the same even if the evidence submitted by the defendants at the trial

B. Considering the legislative purpose of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry to prevent defective construction works due to improper subcontracting on both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing, the motive, background, and circumstances leading up to the instant crime by the Defendants.