All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to the construction work of the former pressing which was ordered by the schools of all levels of the instant case claiming the misunderstanding of the Defendants’ factual misunderstanding or legal principles, the said construction was substantially carried out by Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) operated by Defendant A, and there was no fact that Defendant C lent a license for electrical construction business to Defendant C.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconceptions of facts, which found that Defendant A or Defendant Company did not actually participated in the execution of the instant electrical construction, and recognized the Defendants’ liability for violation of the Electric Construction Business Act due to a nominal lending prohibition.

B. The lower court’s punishment of the Defendants (a fine of KRW 3 million, a fine of KRW 2 million for Defendant Company, and a suspended sentence of KRW 2 million for Defendant C’s imprisonment) is too serious.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant A is a person running a limited company B in YY-gu, Jeonju-si, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of electrical construction business, etc., and Defendant C is a person running the manufacturing chain F in Y-gu, Youngjin-gu, Jeonju-si.

1) Defendant A’s electrical business operator shall not have another person receive or execute electrical construction using his name or trade name.

Nevertheless, at the above B office around July 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract in the name of a limited company B with respect to the electrical ship, control tower installation work, which requires a license for electrical construction business in relation to the electrical construction project from the schools of all levels that he received from C, and accepted it as a “refluent money” in the name of a nominal lending fee.

Accordingly, on August 12, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract with G middle schools and construction cost of KRW 4,202,00 in the name of the said limited company B.