Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No person shall arrange the lending of a construction business registration certificate or construction business registration pocket book to any third person.

Nevertheless, the defendant, who became aware of in the course of operating the C Office, proposed to arrange the lending of a construction license for the construction of multi-household housing, commercial buildings, etc., and introduced D to the owner of the building who requires a construction license and received part of the brokerage fee from D.

On February 19, 2016, the Defendant introduced the owner F and D at the new construction site of multi-family housing in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and arranged D to lend construction registration certificates, etc. to F by lending construction business registration certificates, etc. to the F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes related to Korean files (one wave: 2016 (No. 2016) and Appendix 7) to transaction books A;

1. Article 96 Subparag. 3 and Article 21(2) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; the selection of fines, and the selection of fines, for criminal facts

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. Scope of punishment: From 50,000 to 30 million won;

2. A violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry Determination of Sentence shall not set the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria are not applied because of the choice of a fine.The lending of the name of the construction business, which is a fine of KRW 3 million, may disturb the order of the construction business community and cause problems such as defective construction or safety accidents, so social harm is very great, and the actual contractor and the owner are different, thereby causing various legal disputes, and the social costs required accordingly are enormous.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and the defendant is the owner of the building.