The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (7 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The act of lending the registration name of construction business requires strict punishment due to the risk of causing serious social problems, such as defective construction works, and the fact that the building constructed by the defendant reaches two multi-family housing bonds, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s mistake and reflects; (b) the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; and (c) the fact that the apartment constructed by the Defendant appears to have no risk of safety revealed out of the outside; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) all of the sentencing conditions revealed in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too un

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That among the judgment below, “Article 96 subparag. 5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry” (amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016); “Article 96 subparag. 5 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry” (amended by Act No. 14015, Feb. 3, 2016); “Ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.”