The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The Defendant is merely a mistake of facts who believed the owner G’s horse and employed by F to perform the instant construction work without registration of construction business.

B. Even if the defendant was not innocent, the punishment of a fine of KRW 2.5 million sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant was entrusted with the construction of a factory from G, which was known to the police investigation process, and directly carried out and completed the instant construction work; (ii) the G/F stated that it was merely a person who entered into a contract with G due to business registration issues; (ii) G/F’s statement also stated that G, the owner of the building, entered into a business registration certificate with F on behalf of the Defendant without a business registration certificate; and (iii) F subcontracted the construction to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant without a business registration certificate; and (iv) it conforms to the Defendant’s statement; and (iii) there is no other evidence to acknowledge employment relationship between the Defendant and F, the Defendant is recognized as having been subcontracted and executed by F rather than

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant did not have the same criminal record in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, and that the Defendant’s beliefed the horses of G, the owner of the building and could not entirely exclude the possibility of carrying out the instant construction work without registration of construction business, etc.

However, considering the legislative purpose of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry to prevent defective construction works due to the operation of unregistered construction business, the defendant did not recognize the crime of this case and did not reflect his fault in depth.