beta
(영문) 대법원 2013.10.11 2011도3710

건설산업기본법위반 등

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the first instance court and the lower court, and determined that the Defendant subcontracted all of the instant construction work contracted by the Korea Rural Community Corporation to G, and convicted G of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the name

2. The act of name lending prohibited under Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry as to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor refers to a case where another person knowingly consented or understood to use his trade name or name for the same purpose with the knowledge that he would be qualified to perform construction works by using his trade name or name. Thus, another person performed all or part of subcontracted construction works in the name of a constructor.

Even if the constructor has been supplied with the intention to substantially participate in the construction work and has been actually involved in the construction work, it cannot be viewed as the name lending.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7425 Decided May 13, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6668 Decided May 11, 2007, etc.). Examining these legal principles and records, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that there was no proof of a crime as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry due to the nominal name, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that D was actually involved in the entire process of supply and demand of the instant construction project and its execution.