건설산업기본법위반
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The court below found Defendant B, the operator of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), not guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that Defendant C acted as the operator of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”), lent the name of Defendant D’s construction business, and the court below found Defendant C not guilty of the facts charged
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected to be guilty, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.
The following additional circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in regard to the various circumstances stated in the judgment below, i.e., ① the contract of this case was entered into by A, the contractor, and the contractor, and paid the construction cost. ② Defendant C, the contractor of this case, employed Defendant C as the branch office, and supervised the construction work of this case, and the subcontractor paid the construction cost (the subcontractor who did not receive the construction cost, filed a lawsuit against Defendant D against the subcontractor, not A). ③ Defendant D requested A to pay the construction cost and requested A to jointly owner, but requested A to jointly owner, and if A paid the construction cost, it was again replaced by A to the sole owner (refer to the evidence record No. 368). Nevertheless, Defendant D failed to pay the construction cost.