Defendants shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is the representative director of Limited Company B.

Defendant

A is a contractor awarded a contract for the relocation of C military facilities from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

A contractor shall subcontract the type of business corresponding to the details of construction to a registered constructor.

Nevertheless, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 660 million to D who did not register construction business on September 1, 2015, to pay KRW 660 million for the construction cost, and subcontracted the construction work among the construction work for the relocation of the C military facilities, and stated in the written indictment that “subcontract the construction work for the relocation of the C military facilities” in the written indictment. However, the written agreement for the implementation of the public disclosure written by the Defendant Company B and D is stated that only the civil engineering work during the construction work is subcontracted (the fifth page of the evidence record) and that it is apparent that it is a clerical error and that there is no substantial disadvantage to the Defendants’ right to defense, and thus, it

The contractor violated the limitation of qualification.

2. Defendant B Co., Ltd., Defendant D Co., Ltd., the representative of which, as described in paragraph (1) above, subcontracted the civil engineering works among the construction works for the relocation of the C military facilities to D who did not register the construction business as to the Defendant’s work, and revise them ex officio as described in paragraph (1).

The contractor violated the limitation of qualification.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of part of the statement about witness E in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. An agreement on the execution of construction works, a contract for construction works, and inquiry of constructors;

1.D’s petition of D has not been testified in this Court because its present whereabouts are unknown;

D is in a relationship with the Defendants, but the above written petition is not a document prepared in the presence of an investigative agency or prepared as a part of the investigation process, so the admissibility of evidence should be determined in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act regardless of whether the Defendants denied its contents.

D The authenticity of D is consistent with the content of the work execution agreement, and D has already been made.