The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (10 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The instant crime is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, where the Defendant, who is not a constructor, borrowed a construction business registration certificate, etc. to construct a residential apartment, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the scale of the new building is considerable.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant's mistake is against himself, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the fact that the defendant is the actual owner is favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and the number of executions, the balance of sentencing with the same kind of case, the defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, however, Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the point of borrowing a registration certificate of construction business and a registration pocket book for construction business) of the “Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017)” is amended as “Article 96 subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (the point of borrowing a registration certificate of construction business and a registration pocket for construction business).”