Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is an employee of a corporation B (hereinafter referred to as “B”) who is an on-site agent of C Extension Corporation, and D is engaged in construction business without a license.

B Around June 21, 2016, upon entering into a contract for C Extension work from the Southern-gun, the Defendant was appointed as a field agent, and during the construction, the local government subcontracted the reinforced concrete construction work to the business entity.

around June 25, 2016, the Defendant subcontracted a reinforced concrete construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) to D, a registered constructor, who was introduced through a branch, among the aforementioned C additional construction projects (hereinafter “instant construction project”), and had D perform the construction project from July 2016 to July 2016.

9. By the end, the instant construction was carried out.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. Each photograph attached to the police statement of the defendant;

1. Each report on internal investigation (a business plan, bidding and contract, subcontract, supervision log, etc. related to the C extended Works together with copies thereof, and submission of official documents related to C extended Works together with data on official documents related to C extended Works);

1. An investigation report (in addition to data on details of advance payment and labor cost payment relating to B C Extension Works);

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of the defendant's suspect against the defendant in the case of damage to property (No. 6 of Article 2017 of the Maritime Affairs Office of Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter "I")

The facts charged are denied to the effect that he was unaware of the fact that he borrowed his trade name and subcontracted the instant construction to I. However, in full view of the following facts recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court and the circumstances revealed therefrom, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment, knew that D borrowed a trade name from I, had D, a non-registered constructor, perform the instant construction work, even though he was aware of the fact that D borrowed a trade name from I.