All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

(a) Since punishment was repealed due to the amendment of Acts and subordinate statutes after crimes, the judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced;

(Chapter 1). (b)

Defendants’ act is permitted under Article 16 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

(Chapter 2). (c)

Defendant

The registration of a soil construction business that is registered by a corporation B as a specialized construction business includes the instant bowling and its hosting work (section 3).2.

A. The former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017) provides that an act for construction business operations without registration shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won upon the amendment of the Act, but Article 95-2 Subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that an act without registration shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won after the amendment of the Act. Thus, this case does not fall under Article 326 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

B. The judgment of the court below on Section 2 argues that "the Defendants may perform construction works without registration of the category of business performing the relevant specialized construction works pursuant to Article 16 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Articles 20 and 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since Article 16 (1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is a provision concerning "a person who intends to obtain a contract for the relevant specialized construction works" and Article 16 (2) 1 of the same Act is a provision concerning "a constructor who has registered the category of business performing the comprehensive construction works" and Article 16 (3) of the same Act does not apply to the defendants. Since Article 16 (3) of the same Act is a provision concerning cases where Article 16 (1) 3 and (2) 1 of the same Act applies, it shall not apply to the defendants. In the case of Article 16 (2) 2 of the same Act, this court has duly adopted the evidence.