A. The punishment for violation of the prohibition of sub-subcontract under Article 96 subparag. 4 and Article 29(3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is limited to the case where both a sub-subcontracting business operator and a sub-subcontracting business operator are registered. Thus, if one of the above two is not registered, it shall not be punished pursuant to the above provision.

Defendant

B Co., Ltd. is an enterprise which did not register its construction business and is not a constructor, so the Defendants cannot be punished pursuant to Article 96 subparag. 4 and Article 29(3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant's each fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of the B Co., Ltd. located in Echeon-si, and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. did not register the construction business established for the purpose of manufacturing and wholesale and retailing Aluminium complex.

1. No defendant A subcontractor shall further subcontract subcontracted construction works to any other person;

Nevertheless, around June 2016, the Defendant subcontracted the “F Business” contracted by D Co., Ltd. to E from said D Co., Ltd. to KRW 15,000,000,000, which was then subcontracted to G Co., Ltd. to KRW 10,130,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant subcontracted the subcontracted construction work to another person as the subcontractor of the construction work.

2. A, the representative of Defendant B Co., Ltd., committed the above violations on the date, place, and Defendant’s business at the time and place indicated in Paragraph 1.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

C. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and on this point.