All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the Defendants directly executed part of the instant construction, and thus, the Defendants could not be deemed to have subcontracted most of the main part of the instant construction to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), but the lower court convicted all of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances, i.e., ① the company involved in the instant construction work (hereinafter “Defendant B”) only G with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), ② the employee of Defendant B working at the construction site of this case is only the field agent, and H was originally employed at the time of the instant construction work, but the payment was also borne by G. After the completion of the instant construction work, H returned to G. ③ was instructed by GF at the time of the instant construction work, and stated at the investigative agency that Defendant B did not receive specific instructions from Defendant B, ④ the manpower, equipment, and material used in the part that Defendant B performed were raised from G, and was stated at the investigative agency to use the said manpower, equipment, and material at the request of Defendant B; ⑤ The part that Defendant B worked at the construction site of this case was stated at the construction site of this case to the extent that Defendant B participated in the construction site of this case under the direction of the field agent, and thus, it appears to be specific that the construction cost of this case was paid from the construction site of this case.