beta
Text
Defendant
A KRW 3 million, Defendant B is punished by a fine of KRW 4 million, and Defendant C is punished by a fine of KRW 2 million.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A is a person engaged in a construction business, who has been awarded a contract for the extension of a F Hospital on the land outside and outside two lots of Bosung-gun E, and Defendant B is a person who actually runs the business, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of comprehensive construction business, such as building work business and civil engineering work business.
1. No defendant A or B shall have another person receive a supply of or perform any construction work by using his name or trade name, and the other party shall not perform the construction work by using the name or trade name of the constructor from the constructor;
Nevertheless, around February 2010, Defendant A loaned to Defendant B the said Section’s construction license in KRW 39,152,370 at the I coffee shop located in Gwangju Northern-gu H.
As a result, Defendant B had Defendant A perform the construction work of expanding the F Hospital using the trade name of (State)C, and Defendant A performed the said construction work in such a way.
2. The Defendant C, a real representative, lent a construction business license to the Defendant’s business as described in the foregoing paragraph 1.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant A and B’s legal statement
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to written certifications and written agreements;
1. Article 96 Subparag. 4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201) and Article 21(1)(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry C: The main sentence of Article 98(2), Article 96 Subparag. 4, and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 10719, May 24, 201)
1. Defendant A and B of the Labor House Detention: The reasons for sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act are that the Defendants did not have any money given to the Defendants in return for the instant license lease for the reasons for sentencing under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act; however, the Defendants did not have any same criminal record