Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant B’s punishment (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor (an amount of eight million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The lower court sentenced Defendant B to a suspended sentence of one year for six months, taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendant.

In light of the legislative purport of the Construction Industry Framework Act and the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Right Holder’s Name and the legal interests protected in the above trial, the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, in full view of the fact that the nature of each of the crimes of this case is not less and less than that of the crimes of this case, the punishment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc. are considered, the sentence of the court below is proper and too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) The lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 8 million to the prosecutor’s assertion, taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant.

In full view of the facts that are the conditions for sentencing in the trial, in particular, the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine once every 20 years prior to the previous 20 years prior to the sentencing, the sentences, and the sentencing criteria, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

There is no circumstance that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too unfasible.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, Defendant B.