The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. In full view of all the evidence admitted by the court below, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts that the Defendants ordered the construction work of this case from Leecheon-si to H as a lump sum subcontract. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that, although the constructor cannot subcontract all of the contracted construction works or most of the main parts as determined by the Presidential Decree to another constructor, Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is the representative director of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), around December 28, 2005, a total construction cost of KRW 5.1 billion to H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) for total construction cost of KRW 8.21,563 million (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction”) around March 27, 2006. The Defendant Co., Ltd., a representative director, committed the above violation as to the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s business.

B. As to the above facts charged before the court below and the case before the remand, it is difficult to believe that the court below and the court prior to the remand of the case are the statements of I corresponding to the facts charged in this case, and other evidences alone are sufficient to recognize that the defendant company made a lump sum subcontract to H with the construction of this case. Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime

C. However, the lower court’s judgment is consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court, and the Defendant Company’s entire subcontract amounting to KRW 5.1 billion, as follows: (i) the H representative director I may be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and examined by each of the parties after remanding the lower court; and (ii) the H representative director I shall be consistently determined by the investigative agency to the lower court.