All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not allow Defendant A to supply and demand soil and incidental civil engineering works of Daejeon Taeduk I apartment construction works (hereinafter “instant construction”) using the trade name of the Defendant E company operated by Defendant B. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of all of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment on the grounds for appeal was examined. The construction work in this case was originally conducted by Q Q from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and was overall control over the construction site of Q Q’s technical team director.

According to the statement of J and the statement of K, which is an employee of N, a company that has been subcontracted with some of the above works among the above works by E, the fact that Defendant B received a subcontract from Q, a part of the instant works, using the name of the E corporation operated by Defendant A, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and actually performed the construction work.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendants.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the 10 criminal facts of the judgment of the court below are erroneous in the “Company G” of the 10 criminal facts of the judgment below, it is so decided as per Disposition (see, e.g., Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act).