A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as D).

No constructor shall allow another person to execute construction works using his/her name or trade name or lend his/her construction business registration certificate to another person.

[2013 Highest 4556]

1. On June 7, 2012, the Defendant lent a construction license by using D’s trade name over a total of 221 occasions from December 15, 2011 to October 201, as indicated in the separate crime list, with respect to multi-family housing construction works ordered by the owner F in Gwangju-si, the Defendant received KRW 2.5 million and lent a construction license.

[2014 Highest 41]

2. On March 23, 2012, the Defendant leased a construction license by allowing H to perform construction works using D’s trade name with respect to multi-household housing in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol of H;

1. Application of each statute on a written accusation;

1. Article 96 subparagraph 3 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 21 (1) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. The scope of punishment: Imprisonment for not more than four years and not more than six months;

2. Sentencing Guidelines: The sentencing criteria are not set; 3. The reasons for a suspended sentence of one year are two years: the act of lending construction licenses is a crime that disturbs the order of the construction business community, causes tax evasion, failure to report or reduce the industrial accident insurance, poor construction, etc.

However, in the case of this case, most licensing lending acts were conducted by I, who is an employee of D, and the profits therefrom seems to have been acquired by I, and the defendant did not have any criminal record except a fine.