The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. The judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A of the facts charged that Defendant A subcontracted a window and metal construction work to F on or around January 2014 and that Defendant A subcontracted a window and metal construction work to F on or around April 2014, despite the lapse of the statute of limitations, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is 1) Defendant A’s contractor should subcontract the construction work to the constructor who registered the type of business corresponding to the construction work. The Defendant, around April 2014, subcontracted the construction work in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City to the F who is performing the construction work after being awarded a contract with the owner D, and subcontracted the construction work cost and metal construction work equivalent to KRW 57 million to the construction cost to the F who operates the “E” of a private business chain that is not registered for the construction business. (2) Defendant B Co., Ltd., the Defendant, the representative of the Defendant, committed the said act in relation to the Defendant’s duties.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) issued a tax invoice with respect to the foregoing construction work on April 12, 2014; and (b) received the construction cost from May 29, 2014 to June 30, 2014; and (b) Defendant A commenced the instant construction work on February 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction work”); and (c) the same year.

4. 8. 8. In light of the fact that: (a) even if a construction contract was concluded, it cannot be deemed that a construction contract was concluded on the first month prior to the commencement of the construction project; and (b) Defendant A did not prepare a contract related to the construction project and paid the down payment separately, Defendant A was found guilty of this part of the facts charged by deeming that Defendant A concluded the said construction contract with F around the time when the said tax invoice was prepared.

C. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the first criminal trial for the decision of the trial court, and the finding of guilt is a judge's reasonable doubt.