P, Q, L, R, M and S Co., Ltd.'s appeal and prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants.

A. 1) With respect to all of the Defendants, the instant BY Corporation is a corporation AB (hereinafter “AB”), a specialized company for painting (hereinafter “AB”).

(AP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AP”)

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts charged against the Defendants, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the Defendants’ primary facts charged (the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the nominal name) are found guilty. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendants of the primary facts charged against the Defendants. 2) The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant P, Q, R, and S 1 (hereinafter “ Q”) Company Q (hereinafter “P”) actually managed and supervised the BY construction contracted by Busan City, and, after being employed and insured by the next-way color service introduced by AB, paid labor costs. Q was only leased from AB only to the special vehicles necessary for AB and directly executed by the Corporation.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which found Defendant P and Q guilty of this part of the ancillary charges, erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”).

As for BY projects contracted by Busan City, S only leased special vehicles necessary for AB and received support only for vehicle operation personnel.