All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In view of the fact that misunderstanding of facts, Co., Ltd. actually participated in the construction of a new urban residential house in this case, and that G concluded a construction with Defendant B at the beginning and the circumstances leading up to E’s participation in the said construction, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have caused Defendant B to perform the construction by using the name of Defendant B.

In the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, there is an error of mistake.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant's each fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that Defendant A, who operates a stock company E, had Defendant B perform the construction of the instant urban-type residential house using the trade name E can be sufficiently recognized as stated in the lower judgment.

The court below's finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by mistake.

B. Defendant B did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of case, and Defendant A did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of case in addition to a fine imposed once on January 1997.

Unlike the name lending under the typical Framework Act on the Construction Industry, G, a contractor, was aware of the fact of the name lending between the Defendants, and some of the circumstances, such as G and Defendant B, after the occurrence of disputes over construction works, have taken into account.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant A with the trade name of Defendant B, and Defendant B, using the above trade name, concluded a construction contract with G and executed the construction contract, and the nature of the crime is heavy.

Even if the facts charged in the instant case are clearly admitted by evidence, it is difficult to see that the Defendants are in violation of their depth.

Other records and arguments such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the Defendants are shown.