The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 28, 2009, the J (hereinafter “J”) performed the construction by way of re-subcontracting the building extension by being awarded a contract for the construction of the building extension from D Hospital (C) by the D Hospital (C). The Defendant was working as “pre-service” at J, and the Defendant’s act of issuing and delivering the instant payment guarantee certificate in the capacity of J’s pre-service during the above service period is not a crime of preparing qualification documents and uttering of that document.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as to qualification appearance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, such as the fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, etc. ① The actual operator is F.

(3) On April 13, 2009, E re-subcontracted the panel and the steel section work to H on April 13, 2009, and accordingly conducted the construction work (Evidence 2:69 of the evidence record, trial record, 176 of the trial record). (3) On March 1, 2009, E’s construction work requires comprehensive construction license due to a large scale of construction work, E was a business entity with only a single type of license (Records 107, 160 of the trial record).