All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A, B, and D are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B Co. 1 (No. 6,16 of the annexed Table 1 of the List of Offenses No. 1), among the facts charged against the above Defendants, stated the amount of KRW 18,30,000 in the annexed Table No. 1 of the annexed Table of Crimes 6 among the facts charged against the above Defendants, but this is an amount that includes both the cost of next-way color construction and traffic safety processing, and among which the above Defendants subcontracted, the amount of KRW 13,463,816, which is based on the next-way color construction work subcontracted by the above Defendants, constitutes a minor construction work that can carry on construction business without being registered under the construction industry law, and thus subcontracted the above leading color construction work part to a person who has not registered as a painting construction business does not constitute a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

B) In the case of the attached list 16 No. 16, the above Defendants entered into a contract for construction directly with the office of Ulsan-gun and subcontracted this to the AJ Co., Ltd., and did not allow L to do construction by using the trade name of the Defendant B Co., Ltd.

2) The sentence of the lower court against the above Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 10 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant C and D (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) According to Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is a duty provision of this case, Defendant A and B, the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (attached Table 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 15, No. 15, No. 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, and 15, Defendant A and B, Defendant B, the contractor must subcontract to the constructor who registered the type of business corresponding to the construction work, and the proviso of Article 9 (1) of the same Act does not require registration only to the business operator who directly performs small construction work, but the lower court applies Article 96 (4) and Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, which is a penal provision of this case.