In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the fine shall be respectively imposed.

1. No defendant A constructor shall have another person execute electrical construction by having the latter use his name or trade name;

Nevertheless, from December 2014 to October 2015, the Defendant had B perform the construction of Lwork in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, which was contracted by the JejuJ, using the trade name of the stateM.

2. A person who intends to operate a electrical construction business shall register with the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location of the principal place of business as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade,

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without registering with the Cheongyang-gun Do Governor, engaged in electrical construction business from December 2, 2014 to October 2015 at the site of the Cheongyang-gun Cheongyang-gun Cheongyang-gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by a part of the prosecution against the defendant A;

1. Protocol concerning the suspect examination of the defendant B by the prosecution;

1. Statement of N police statement;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements from the complainant and the person responsible for J);

1. Application of a copy of each contract for construction works (Evidence records 35, 36, 68-73 pages), business registration certificate (O), a copy of each tax invoice, and a copy of each passbook Act and subordinate statutes;

1. A defendant who has the relevant legal provisions and a sentence concerning the facts constituting an offense: Article 42 subparagraph 3 of the Electrical Construction Business Act and Article 10 (Selection of Fines); Article 42 subparagraph 1 of the Electrical Construction Business Act and Articles 42 (1) and 4 (1) of the Electrical Construction Business Act;

1. Judgment on the defendants in custody in the workhouse: the defendants A and the defense counsel's assertion under Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the claim is that M& corporation operated by Defendant A was awarded a contract for the above electrical construction by J, and only part of which was sub-subcontracted to Defendant B, and was actually involved in the execution of the above electrical construction.

2. Determination

(a) The same shall apply to the following cases where a constructor has properly contracted for a project in light of the provisions of Article 10 of the Electrical Construction Business Act: