The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the sentence (7 million won in penalty) declared by the court below against the defendant.

2. The instant crime is deemed to have newly built three multi-family housing units by lending a construction business registration certificate, etc. from a third person even though the Defendant is not a constructor. In light of the fact that the act of lending a construction business name to a third person is likely to cause significant social harm and harm by building the defective construction of a building by an unqualified person, the Defendant needs to be punished strictly.

On the other hand, however, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing his mistake, and there is no particular criminal history except for the same criminal record and one-time fine prior to a hundred and twenty-year period of fine.

Considering the above conditions unfavorable to or favorable to the defendant, and the age, sex, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, it does not seem unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which reads “Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry” as “Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017)” as “Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry.”