The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry in the market), the Defendant merely subcontracted the construction work to B, and there is no fact that the Defendant had his trade name used to supply and execute the construction work. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (2 years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, 160 hours of community service, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the construction of this case after borrowing the name of the defendant from the investigative agency to the court below, and entering into a contract with the owner of the construction of this case directly. The defendant stated that he did not participate in the construction of this case; ② the owner of the construction of this case, J, the owner of the construction of this case, stated to the purport that he was awarded the construction of this case through K; ③ the K also stated to the purport that he introduced the D corporation operated by the defendant for the purpose of lending the license due to the lack of the comprehensive construction license, and the fact that the defendant introduced the D corporation operated by the defendant for the purpose of lending the license. In full view of the above facts and circumstances, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the owner of this case receive and execute the construction work using his trade name. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

The act of lending the name of the construction business as in the instant case requires strict punishment as a highly harmful crime because it disturbs the order of the construction business community, causes problems such as tax evasion, report on reduction of or poor construction for industrial accident insurance, etc., and the Defendant committed a crime.