The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts E was an employee of the actual Defendant’s workplace, and only lent a career pocketbook to E in the Defendant’s workplace.

Even if the defendant did not recognize it at all, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of mistake of facts argues that E entered into a fixed employment contract with the credit rating company in which the Defendant had operated, and actually received benefits from January 1, 2015 to May 25, 2010, the Defendant did not lend E’s career pocket book. However, the lower court acknowledged facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the fact that E stated in an investigation agency that he had lent his name to the credit rating company (nine pages) and the fact that he stated in the investigation agency that he borrowed his name to the credit rating company (nine pages) and the fact that G, a broker broker broker broker for qualification, appears to have arranged to lend his career pocket to the credit rating company D (152 pages of investigation record), and (3) it appears that E would have agreed to arrange to loan his career pocket book to the credit rating company D at the time of lending the qualification certificate to the credit rating company D, and it is difficult to accept the fact that E is an employee of the Defendant’s credit rating company, through four insurance and wage payment, etc.

Although the defendant asserts that he did not have intention on the lending of career pocket books, the court below, even if based on the defendant's statement, did not engage in the electrical construction business before the defendant's order, is the subcontractor for the electrical construction contract in the old EL branch.