2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data are not submitted in the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant for unfair reasons for sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court. The instant crime is likely to circumvent the legislative intent of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for promoting the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, and thus, is unlikely to cause problems such as insufficient construction, and thus, it is difficult to view that the amendment of the Act was made to strengthen criminal punishment against a non-registered constructor after the instant crime, and that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion in the lower court’s sentencing process.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 96 subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is the applicable law to criminal facts, was amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017; Article 95-2 subparag. 1 of the same content was newly established, and the statutory penalty was increased as the above law was enacted from September 22, 2017, which was the first sentence of the lower judgment. Accordingly, the lower court ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.