The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

300,000,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1), the Defendant recognized the fact that the Defendant received 2 to 5 re-amounts of money on the list of crimes attached to the judgment below (hereinafter “the list of crimes”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below. However, on July 2010, the Defendant was paid 30 million won, different from the list of crimes Nos. 1 again (50 million won) around July 201, and was paid 6 years from the list of crimes No. 6 (100 million won) around September 21, 2012.

B) The Defendant did not have the authority to take part in the inspection of the construction performed by K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), which is a subcontractor, or to select a subcontractor, because the Defendant was merely a site warden of J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”).

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the defendant's money received from the K is a consideration for solicitation to provide convenience or to select it as a subcontractor in the future so that the examination of the construction performed by the K is not delayed.

C) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the lower court found all of the facts charged.

2) As to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Defendant did so with the prior approval from J and supervising companies, and did not have the right to decide on the change of subcontractor. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant falls under “contractor” or “a subordinate contractor” as prescribed by Articles 96 subparag. 5 and 29(2) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter the same).

B) The supervising company did not recognize K as necessary to grant a license to dismantle the non-limited structures, which are the removal license, to perform the removal work of wells, and notified K of its proper opinion to the J, and the J did not recognize that the Defendant is also required to grant a license to remove in connection with the above work and without recognizing that the Defendant is also required to do so.