The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal reasoning is that a person who owns a misunderstanding construction business knowingly consented or understood that he/she would use his/her name while lending his/her name. Thus, a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Article 96 subparag. 5 and Article 41 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) and a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry from borrowing a construction business registration certificate (Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) are in a legally competing relationship or at least one act is in a mutually concurrent relationship corresponding to two crimes.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of April, the suspension of execution of one year, and the community service order of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Articles 96 subparag. 5 and 41 of the Framework Act on Construction Industry to determine the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles punish “a person performing construction work of a residential building with a total floor area exceeding 661 square meters, or with a total floor area not exceeding 661 square meters, even if not a constructor is not a constructor.” Articles 96 subparag. 3 and 21 of the Framework Act on Construction Industry punish “a person who receives or executes construction work of a multi-family housing with a constructor’s name or trade name, or borrows a construction business registration certificate or construction business registration pocket book”. The above two crimes are punished with a different intent and form of punishment, and one of the elements is not included or absorption, and thus, are not in violation of the Framework Act on Construction Industry due to a construction business operator’s violation of the Framework Act on Construction Business’s restriction.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. Housing, etc. is performed by lending the registration of construction business to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.