All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. Article 29(2) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201; hereinafter the same) was deleted following the amendment by Act No. 10719, May 24, 2011. This was repealed based on reflective consideration as to the excessive restriction on subcontracting. Thus, acquittal judgment should be pronounced pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Article 29(2) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry applies to the case of subcontracting to a constructor. Since the AJ operated by the Z or the Z is not a constructor, the above provision does not apply to this case.

C. Defendant A’s act of having the AJ build a synthetic timber climateing is not “subcontract” prohibited by the Framework Act on Construction.

Defendant

A was not aware of the Z or AJ at all until it was introduced by a working person of the Office of Education, and the AJ was not aware of the fact that it did not register the indoor construction business. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the instant crime.

E. Due to the flexible relationship between the Z and the public official, the Defendants used synthetic timber cirling that only sold in the Daegu-Gyeongbuk area as material for the design drawing of the construction awarded the contract. The Defendants did not demand the construction supervisor to revise the materials. The Z must not supply synthetic timber ciring to the Defendants and must directly perform the construction work. The Defendants had to subcontract the construction work to the Z. However, even if the Defendants did not complete the registration of indoor construction work, the Defendants’ subcontracting to the Z is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules.