Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A은 전남 함평군 D에서 토목건축공사업을 주 업종으로 하는 B 주식회사 대표이사이고, 피고인 B 주식회사는 피고인 A이 대표이사로 재직하는 법인이다.

No constructor shall subcontract all of contracted construction works, or most of the major parts prescribed by Presidential Decree to another constructor.

1. Defendant A stated in the indictment 431,255,400 won 420,300 won, but it appears that Defendant A is a clerical error in writing.

See 46 of the investigation records. After winning the contract, the above Corporation was subcontracted to E at the above B's office at that time to KRW 298,258,322.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd. subcontracted the construction work such as the massage chart to Defendant B, the representative director as described in the above 1., thereby violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the standard subcontract agreement for construction business, the statement of construction cost settlement, the account of agricultural cooperatives under E, the details of the account in the name of F post office, notification of the conclusion of construction contracts, notification of subcontract for construction works, and application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 96 subparag. 4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 29(1) of the same Act;

(b) Defendant B: Article 98(2), Article 96 subparag. 4, and Article 29(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act appears to be contrary to the recognition of the instant crime, the Defendants did not have any history of criminal punishment prior to the Defendants, and there was no false construction of the instant insideline, etc. due to subcontracting.