A. Defendants A and C Co., Ltd. (A) did not take part in Defendant B’s fraud crime.

② After the completion of the pertinent construction work, the construction cost in this case was calculated by applying the unit price of wages to the actual construction cost. The act of deception merely requires attachment of false tax invoice, etc.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, since the Defendants completed the construction work corresponding to the construction cost actually received, they acquired the money equivalent to the construction cost.

shall not be effective.

③ 건설산업 기본법 위반죄에 대하여, 피고인 B가 형식상 S 나 R 등을 내세워 하도급 공사인 것처럼 꾸몄을 뿐이고, 실질적으로는 피고인 주식회사 C( 이하 ‘ 피고인 회사’ 라 한다) 이 그 직원인 피고인 B를 통해 직영공사를 한 것으로 보아야 한다.

B) The Defendant Company did not acquire money equivalent to the construction cost since it completed the construction work corresponding to the construction cost actually paid.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 2 years of the suspended sentence of 10 months of imprisonment; 8 million won of fine; 2 years of the suspended sentence of 6 months; Defendant B’s company; and 8 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts against Defendant A is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as follows. In other words, the actual employees of Defendant Company are limited to about five persons, and in particular, as to H, I, J, K, L and M Defect Repair Works (hereinafter “instant construction”) among M&M defect repair Works in the light area, Defendant A, who is in the position of representative director of the Defendant Company, has overall control over them. Thus, Defendant A, who is in the position of representative director of the Defendant Company, is naturally the instant construction work.