The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

The main sentence of Article 9(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that “any person who intends to conduct construction business shall file for registration with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport according to the type of business prescribed by Presidential Decree” and Article 96(1) provides that any person who violates the provisions of Article 9(1) shall be punished.

On the other hand, where multiple acts falling under the name of the same crime continue to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and where the legal benefits are the same, each act should be punished as a single comprehensive crime.

According to the records, the defendant registered his/her business under B with his/her trade name, and thereafter, from October 14, 201 to February 2, 2012, 201, the defendant constructed a large-scale repair construction of "A" and "B" on the land, other than Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and one lot of land, as a neighborhood living facility, and extended "A" as a neighborhood living facility. The above "A" large-scale repair construction and extension construction are continuously conducted for a certain period under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal act corresponding to the same crime, and the damage corporation is also the same. Thus, each act constitutes a violation of Article 96 subparagraph 1 and Article 9 (1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, all of which constitute a crime of violating Article 96 (1

I would like to say.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes and concurrent crimes, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the application of the law.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing has a ground for ex officio reversal.