The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Prior to the amendment by Act No. 10719 on May 24, 2011 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry

(a) The same shall apply;

Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that “A constructor shall not have another person receive or execute construction works using his/her name or trade name or lend his/her construction business registration certificate or construction business registration pocketbook.” Article 96(4) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that “A constructor who violates Article 21 shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.” In addition, Article 2(5) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that “a constructor shall mean a person who runs a construction business upon registration, etc. under this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes.” According to these provisions, the subject of Articles 96 subparag. 4 and 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry is clearly limited to a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do534, Jun. 13, 1997).

) Since the defendant is only the actual representative in the facts charged and is not in the position of the constructor stipulated in each of the above provisions, it cannot be punished as a violation of Article 96 subparagraph 4 and Article 21 (1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (However, if the defendant is the actual actor of the facts charged in this case, he may be punished as a violation of Article 96 subparagraph 4 and Article 21 (1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry pursuant to joint penal provisions of Article 98 (2) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

However, the court below held that the defendant is the actual representative of I and therefore, Article 2 subparag. 5 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry is erroneous in the above provision

(b).