The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the establishment of a franchise store, the Defendants asserted the misunderstanding of the fact that they were commissioned by the owner of the franchise store to select the construction company and the construction contract on behalf of the owner of the franchise store, and the Defendants did not perform the construction as the contractor, or Defendant B did not ordered the subcontractor to perform the interior construction work by being awarded a contract from the owner of the franchise store.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Improper assertion of sentencing is unfair because the lower court’s punishment sentenced to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 5 million per each of the fines) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts as to the same assertion as to the grounds for appeal, and the same argument as to the Defendants’ grounds for appeal. “Defendant B entered into a franchise agreement with the owner of the franchise store, including the interior contract, and received the interior cost from the owner of the franchise store, and issued a tax invoice, and thus, Defendant B subcontracted to other companies, such as “F” and “G,” and thus, caused the relevant companies to conduct the interior work.

Even if the party to the contract entered into with the franchise owner, the party to the contract is the defendant B.

The assertion was rejected by explaining that point.

Examining the records in comparison with the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

3. In light of the following circumstances, in full view of the Defendants’ benefits acquired from the instant crime, the developments leading to the instant crime and the method of law, etc., as well as all matters regarding the sentencing indicated in the instant records and the theory of change, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants is not deemed unfair, and thus, it does not seem that the Defendants’ punishment imposed on the Defendants is inappropriate.