A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a non-registered constructor.

No person shall receive a contract for or execute construction works by borrowing the name or trade name of a constructor.

Nevertheless, around July 10, 2012, the Defendant leased the trade name from E Co., Ltd. (Representative F) registered as a comprehensive construction company at the second floor of the Diplomatic Building in Chungcheongnam-nam (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul”) around that time at the coffee shop, and received a contract for the construction work of the I childcare center from G during the name of the said company from July 2012 to October 2012, 201, with the construction cost of KRW 210 million from July 16, 2012 to November 201 of the same year.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, J, witness K and L respectively;

1. Copy of each protocol of examination of suspect regarding L by the prosecution;

1. Summary order, standard contract for private construction works, copy of business registration certificate, content certification, response to contents certification, and ledger of ordinary buildings;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on construction site photographs;

1. Article 96 Subparag. 3 and Article 21(1) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (Amended by Act No. 12580, May 14, 2014); the choice of imprisonment for a crime

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( considered favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence) asserts that the person who borrowed a trade name from the E Co., Ltd. is G rather than the Defendant. It is recognized that the E Co., Ltd. actually performed the instant construction work and lent a trade name to the E Co., Ltd. to the E Co., Ltd. is also recognized by the aforementioned evidence. Thus, whether the person who actually leased a trade name from E Co., Ltd. is the Defendant, or G

Domins, Domins, .