All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendants’ violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Defendant A’s representative of the E Co., Ltd. actually carried out the construction in violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Defendant B acted as the agent of the E Co., Ltd., Defendant A did not lend the name of E Co., Ltd. to Defendant B, and Defendant B did not borrow the name of E Co., Ltd.

B. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake as to Defendant A’s fraud is merely a receipt of KRW 44 million from J Co., Ltd. as a matter of contract price, and there is no intention of deception.

(c)

As to the defendants' and the prosecutor's unfair argument of sentencing, the court below asserts that the defendants' punishment (the defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 5 million won of fine) declared by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Determination of Facts as to the Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter “the act of allowing another person to receive or execute construction works by using his/her name or trade name” (hereinafter “title lending”) means a case where the other person knowingly consented or understood to use his/her trade name or name for the same purpose while carrying out construction works with qualification as a constructor who is qualified by using his/her trade name or name. Thus, even if he/she carries out construction works with another person (hereinafter “contractor”) in the name of a constructor, if the constructor himself/herself has received or been actually involved in the construction works, it cannot be deemed as a nominal lending.

(b) A child, constructor, or constructor.