All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first contract agreement for new hotel construction works is prepared in the form of a contract as if the new construction works were en bloc awarded, including the construction cost of electrical construction, information and communications construction, and fire-fighting system installation works (hereinafter “each of the instant construction works”) for the purpose of using the loan screening for project

On December 1, 2015, each license company of each construction has entered into an individual contract for each construction project with the City and each construction project on December 1, 2015, and each construction work has been paid to the actual license company.

Accordingly, on December 18, 2015, the Defendants concluded a modified contract with the content that the Defendants would be excluded from the exercise of the city and each construction work.

As such, the Defendants did not actually receive a contract for each hotel construction project, including each construction project.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the preparation of a comprehensive contract for new hotel construction works in the form under the premise of the conclusion of an individual contract for each construction project in the future has reached the extent to which the Defendants can be actually engaged in the relevant work of each construction project. Thus, the Defendants are not included in the “person who performs each construction project.”

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the 1st issue of determining the misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned argument in detail under the title of "the grounds for recognizing a crime of oil" in the judgment.

If the judgment of the court below is examined closely with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is just and acceptable to the judgment of the court below, and it does not affect the judgment of the court below only with the evidence submitted by the counsel at the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below as to this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.