When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

B is the owner of the new construction work of multi-family housing (hereinafter referred to as the “this construction work”) in Spocheon City C, and the defendant is the person who has been delegated by the above B to perform the construction work.

No person shall contract or perform construction works by lending the name or trade name of a constructor or lend his/her construction business registration certificate or construction business registration pocket book to another person.

Nevertheless, the defendant, in collusion with B on August 2016, in the vicinity of the construction site at the end of this year, shall pay 7 million won to the person who is responsible for mediating construction registration certificate, and shall lend the registration certificate, etc. of the construction business to the person who is responsible for mediating construction registration certificate

9.8.Construction of a building after receipt of an application for commencing the Pocheon Viewing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Report on internal investigation (receiving related cases and in B currency of the owner), each investigation report (to be accompanied by B data submitted by a suspect, and the date of filing the commencement report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, inquiry reports;

1. Article 96 Subparag. 3 and Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment are examined; the defendant recognizes the criminal facts of this case late late, and reflects his/her mistake; and the fact that there is no special criminal punishment record except punishment imposed twice on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents around 2013, etc. is recognized as a normal condition favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case, in collusion with the owner of the building, by which the defendant borrowed the construction business registration certificate, is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the contents and methods of the crime, the balance with the general sentencing in the same or similar cases, and the age, character, character and conduct, intelligence of the defendant as shown in the argument of this case.