The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)

A. Fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles do not constitute information and communications construction business, and there is no intention to do so.

Therefore, Defendants cannot be applied to the violation of the Information and Communication Work Business Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant’s each fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the record of judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A’s act constitutes an information and communications construction business and constitutes an intentional act of information and communications construction business. Therefore, the Defendants’ allegation in this part is without merit

1) Even according to the statement made by Defendant A at an investigative agency, the above Defendant was aware of the fact that an order for separate construction works should be made in the case of information and communications construction works. However, it appears that the above Defendant received an order for the entire construction works including the aforementioned construction works, by deeming that there is no problem of subcontracting to other licensing companies (Evidence No. 346 pages). 2) The Defendants concluded a contract to subcontract the electricity, telecommunications, and electrical fire fighting works to L Co., Ltd. (Evidence No. 639 pages) after the Defendant Company was awarded a contract for the entire construction works including the initial information and communications construction works (Evidence No. 639) and thereafter concluded a joint supply and demand agreement

(Evidence) (Records 642). In light of the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, a joint supply and demand company with the nature of a partnership under the Civil Act, and the claims against a contractor due to the execution of construction works by a joint supply and demand company, or the construction cost received from a contractor, as a matter of principle, belongs to the joint supply and demand company members (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da105406, May 17, 2012),