All appeals filed by A, B and prosecutor against Defendant A and C are dismissed.

A. Defendant A and Defendant B as the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd., and around March 2015, were merely subcontracted the “G Nowon-gu Replacement Construction Work” (hereinafter “instant construction work”) as indicated in the lower judgment to I who operated H Co., Ltd. on or around March 2015, and they did not lend the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (trade name) to I in relation to the said construction work.

Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant A and B guilty of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry on the grounds of a confession without credibility. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, misapprehending the legal doctrine, or failing to deliberate (hereinafter “factal mistake, etc.”).

B. Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant A and C (Defendant A: fine of 8,000,000, Defendant C: fine of 5,000,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant A and B’s factual misunderstanding, etc., Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant B’s company, may fully recognize the fact that Defendant B, as stated in the judgment of the court below, had Defendant B, a representative director of Defendant B, performed the instant construction work using the trade name (title) of Defendant B corporation as stated in

(1) In the prosecutor’s investigation and the court below’s decision, Defendant A led to the confession of all of the facts charged with this part of the facts charged that he lent the name of the Defendant B corporation to I operating H corporation as the representative director of the said corporation.

In addition, in the case related to I also, both the charges of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry with the content that he was leased the name of the Defendant B corporation from Defendant A in the case related to Suwon District Court (No. 2016 Goyang Branch Branch 1408) and thereafter the judgment of conviction was finalized.

Sheet Defendant A made the previous statement in the trial.