All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry among the facts charged in this case, and found the Defendants guilty on the remainder of the facts charged, and since the Defendants and the prosecutor did not appeal only on the guilty portion, the part of the court below found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the scope of party members’ trial is limited

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Regarding the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act against the Defendants by misapprehending the legal principles, Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act punishs a person who borrows access media for the purpose of using it for a crime. Here, “use” means only the use of access media as a direct or indirect means for the commission of a crime, and it does not mean the case where it is used as a means to conceal a crime as in the instant case. However, the lower court convicted the Defendants of this part of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In other words, Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act prohibits the act of lending, lending, keeping, delivering, or distributing access media with the knowledge of the purpose of using it for a crime or being used for a crime. In light of the language and text of the above provision, it seems that there is no reason to interpret only where the access media “purposes to be used for a crime” is used directly or indirectly for the constituent act of a specific crime. ② Defendant A obtained a construction experience certificate from E and G and registered the said E and G status as a construction engineer.