The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that F was employed by F as an electrical engineer in the same birth and leased the Defendant’s special vehicle, and the Defendant did not receive a subcontract from F.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the lower court, but the lower court rejected the above argument on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by taking account of the following evidence.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, namely, the electrical construction of this case by Defendant’s own assertion or witness I’s testimony within the contract period of approximately one year, the materials provided by Defendant’s E, and the materials provided by Defendant’s E, as its main materials, were also conducted using a special vehicle leased from the Defendant, and there was no objective data to ascertain the details of F’s participation in the electrical construction of this case until the court below held, and there was no other material about the material elements necessary for the electrical construction of this case other than the electrical engineer, material, and special vehicle provided by the Defendant. In full view of the following circumstances, the overall material elements of the electrical construction of this case were managed by the Defendant.

In this case, the execution of the above form of construction works is bound to be considered as a subcontract.

The judgment of the court below that held as above is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.