A. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendants believed that the construction work as stated in the judgment of the court below may be performed without registration, while operating a small-scale construction enterprise, and thus, the Defendants’ crime of this case is due to the mistake of the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act or did not have intention to do so.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant B: a fine of 5 million won, Defendant C: a fine of 7 million won) against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple case of law, but it is generally a case where a crime is committed but it is recognized that it does not constitute a crime as permitted under the law in one's special circumstances, and there is a justifiable reason for such misunderstanding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do2943, Aug. 18, 200; 200Do2943, May 26, 1992; 91Do894, May 26, 1992). The circumstance that the defendants' assertion was merely a mere legal site, and in particular, it is not a case where the defendants actively perceived that it is not a crime permitted under the law, and thus it cannot be deemed an act of mistake of facts or a mistake of legal principles.

B. On the other hand, the defendants have no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc. on the assertion of unfair sentencing.