Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. and Defendant C attempted to perform the construction work by being awarded a contract for the construction work of the instant exhibition hall with the introduction of Defendant B, but the contract was changed to the construction cost, etc., and only Defendant B performed the construction work by granting a subcontract for the steel construction work to Defendant B, and thus, Defendant A did not lend the trade name of Defendant A Co., Ltd. to F, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The public prosecutor (defendant B) rendered acquittal on Defendant B by applying the amended Act prior to its enforcement, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of Defendant A and Defendant C, the fact that Defendant C did not actually perform construction as stated in the instant facts charged and lent the trade name of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) to F to allow the construction work.

① The actual contractor of the instant construction is F.

F was awarded a contract for the instant construction work from G on September 2, 2011 (F concluded a contract by lending the name of I), and as a comprehensive construction business license was required during the commencement process, Defendant A was introduced through B, which was known to the general public.

Defendant

C The Defendant’s assertion that the instant construction business license was not required for F to intervene in Defendant A because it was possible for F to execute the construction business even without a person holding a comprehensive construction business license at the time of entering into the instant construction business license. However, in light of the F’s statement that a comprehensive construction business license was required through a change in the total floor area on November 7, 201, and that the comprehensive construction business license was required, the Defendant’s assertion was made.