The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not lend the name of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), which is a constructor, but actually worked as a field manager of F, so long as the Defendant does not fall under “the other party of the constructor who demanded another person to receive or execute construction works by using his/her name or trade name,” it cannot be subject to punishment. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the establishment of a violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant borrowed the name of F, which is the constructor.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court’s determination of mistake and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the Defendant, as he did not have a construction business registration pocketbook, was unable to carry out the construction of multi-family housing that he had received, and as he did not carry out the construction work by lending the trade name of F in order to carry out the construction work, the said construction work was performed as a field agent of the said construction work.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it does not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

In the first instance, the defendant, as an employee of the building owner, performed the construction work as the field manager of F and received the monthly salary from the building owner, and the person who borrowed the construction business license is the building owner, but the court below duly adopted and investigated the construction business license.