The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the fact that C and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant company”) directed and supervised human resources arranged by I (hereinafter referred to as “I”) and paid remuneration directly, the instant company did not enter into a re-subcontract as stated in the facts charged in the instant case with I, and only a simple number of employees necessary for the creative finishing work of the instant company (private dancing and coding in the part where the windows were installed; hereinafter the same shall apply) is an arrangement by I.

B. Even if the instant company was awarded a sub-subcontract for the construction work in the first place, it means only the construction work that the instant company performs under a subcontract as prescribed by Article 8(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 7 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and is not included in the “establishment” of the title, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant company re-subcontracted part of the construction work that was subcontracted to the I.

C. The lower court determined that the Changho Lake Construction constitutes a “construction work” under Article 29(3) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry because it falls under the category of “salking and waterproofing construction business,” which is a specialized construction business type under the same Act, but the Changho Construction Work is merely a simple repetition work whose characteristics are entirely different from the damping and waterproof construction business, which requires registration under the same Act, and thus does not fall under construction work under the same Act, and thus, the restriction on re-subcontracts under Article 29(

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The original judgment and the trial court duly adopted and investigated as to whether to conclude a sub-subcontract between the instant company and I.