Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

1. Defendant A’s representative established on June 5, 2001 in the name of Defendant B Co., Ltd. for the purpose of general construction business, etc., shall be the spouse of the Defendant.

D. It is referred to only as “Defendant Company.”

(2) On October 18, 2012, the Defendant was awarded a contract with the owner E for a “G hotel” interior work, which is a tourist accommodation facility (including value-added tax), for total construction cost of KRW 3.734 billion (including value-added tax) and on December 21, 2012, to the constructor I, who did not register interior construction work corresponding to the content of the construction work, should subcontract the construction work to the constructor who registered the type of business corresponding to the content of the construction work. Thus, in the case of a building interior work, the interior construction work should be subcontracted to the constructor who registered the interior construction business among specialized construction works in conformity with the content of the construction work. However, on October 18, 2012, the Defendant subcontracted the construction work to the constructor I who did not register the interior construction work business corresponding to the content of the construction work through H, a director at the construction site.

2. The Defendant Company violated the above provision of subcontract restriction in relation to the Defendant’s business, as described in paragraph 1, by Defendant A, who is a substantial representative.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each testimony of the witness H and I;

1. Some of the police officers and suspect interrogation records of the accused;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant, defense counsel, and copy of a construction permit official document, a copy of a construction agreement, and the details of entry and withdrawal

1. As to the facts charged in this case, the defendant A and the defense counsel believed that the director of the field office of the defendant company would have recommended the company with a license for interior construction work as a matter of course in order to recommend I, and thus, there was no intention to commit the act of violation.