Article 96 subparag. 5 and Article 29(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (wholly amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter “former Act”) apply to a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Act. However, Article 98(2) of the former Act provides that a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or individual commits an offense under Article 94, 95, 95-2, 96, or subparagraphs 1 and 1-2 and 3 of Article 97 of the former Act with respect to the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the relevant corporation or individual be punished by a fine under each relevant provision. The purport of the provision is that where a corporation or individual who is a constructor or an individual does not directly commit an offense under each of the above Article, the constructor, other than the constructor, is also subject to the application of the aforementioned penal provision to the constructor’s evidence duly adopted by the court below without merit and evidence.

However, the court below erred by maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which omitted Article 98 (2) of the former Act from among the applicable provisions to Defendant A, but in light of the facts stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the criminal liability of Defendant A as an offender in violation of Article 29 (1) of the former Act.