All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B’s punishment (the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment of August and the community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 7 million; Defendant B: a prison term of KRW 8 months; a prison term of KRW 2 years; and a community service order of KRW 120 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The crime of this case committed by Defendant A is that Defendant, other than a constructor, constructed a multi-family housing by lending a construction business registration certificate, etc., and the quality of such crime is less severe.

However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime as a primary offender and divided his mistake; and (b) taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s crime of this case is likely to be subject to criticism in that Defendant B, not a constructor, constructed a multi-family housing by lending a construction business registration certificate, etc., and the nature of the crime is not less severe, and Defendant also committed the same crime in 2013 and 2014 even if he committed the same crime as this case.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided his mistake, the Defendant’s acquisition of a construction business entity that completed the registration of the instant construction business after the instant crime intends to run the construction business lawfully, and other various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed appropriate and it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too heavy or unfeasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant B and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.