All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding (the defendants) Defendant A worked as the field manager of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and performed the instant construction work as the representative of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, and did not perform the instant construction work by lending the trade name of Defendant C (hereinafter “C”).

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant B, D) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The defendants and the defense counsel of the court below alleged the same purport as the reasons for appeal at the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendants, the defendants, the defendant B, and D's defense counsel's arguments under the title "a judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's arguments" in the court below's decision. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and since each of the statements of the witness S and B which were additionally investigated at the court below did not have credibility or lack probative value, they did not affect the above judgment of the court below, it cannot be said that there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendants' above mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The crime of this case committed by Defendants B and D with respect to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the nominal lending method goes against the legislative intent of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the purpose of preventing defective construction works by a person without a license and properly executing construction works, and such a case is not less complicated, and the Defendants cannot be deemed as a genuinely contradictory act, such as denying the crime of this case until the trial is held.