The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, No. 1 to No. 2, 11.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the lower court rendered a judgment of acquittal, and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by borrowing each name listed in No. 1 of the List of Crimes No. 1 of the following facts charged in this case, and the judgment of conviction as to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry following borrowing the remaining names. Only the Defendants appealed on the guilty part of the judgment

Therefore, since the Defendants and the prosecutor’s non-appealed parts are separated and determined depending on the expiration of the appeal period, the judgment of the court below should be judged only on the guilty parts among the judgment below.

2. Reasons for appeal;

A. In the facts charged in the instant case, it does not specify what the Defendants’ act constitutes a construction act borrowing the name.

B. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, Defendant C, a constructor, who has the qualifications for tendering road surface display works, and the equipment and ability to perform actual construction works, (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), is qualified for this bid, but the entire construction works are outsourced by a successful bidder who failed to meet the equipment and ability to perform the actual construction works, and the construction is not executed under the name of the successful bidder.

(c)

Article 96 subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same) which violates the principle of statutory punishment is against the principle of statutory punishment because Article 96 subparagraph 3 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 201) permits a person

(d)

The sentencing unfair sentence of the court below (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order, Defendant Company: 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

3. The facts charged in the judgment of the court below

A. Defendant A, from March 2013 to J in 2013, 30% of the contract amount for construction works, to be awarded by Defendant A for the maintenance and repair of the surface of the area subject to prohibition of spirits in 2013.