The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same) prohibits only the lending of a construction business registration certificate or a construction business registration pocket book, and there is no provision prohibiting borrowing of a loan.

In addition, Article 96 subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry stipulates that "the other party" is "a person who intends to engage in the construction as a unregistered or qualified building business operator" and does not specify the owner.

Since the defendant was in the position of a project owner who is not a registered business owner or a person who is not a qualified building business owner, the defendant cannot be punished for the defendant under the former Framework Act on Construction Industry in accordance with the legal principle of criminal punishment and the principle of law.

(1) No provision prohibiting a borrower from borrowing a construction business registration certificate shall be prescribed in Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Even if the provision prohibiting the lending of a construction business registration certificate is interpreted, it is inevitable to prohibit borrowing of a construction business registration certificate. ② Article 96 subparag. 3 of the former Framework Act on Construction Industry provides that the other party of a construction business registration certificate shall be punished, ③ The defendant entered into a contract with the police to execute construction in D, and ultimately the defendant actually executed.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant borrowed D’s construction business registration certificate from the position of the owner of the building as stated in the judgment below and actually performed construction, the Defendant’s act of constructing the building by leasing all copies of the construction business registration certificate and the construction documents as stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed as violating the legal principle when the Defendant was punished as a fine by applying Articles 96(3) and 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.