The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A is punished by fine of KRW 2,00,000, and Defendant B is punished by fine of KRW 1,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were not aware of the fact that they subcontracted the instant construction work again, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) directly executed the construction work.

However, only used the business name of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) for the convenience of fund management.

In addition, there was no fact that the construction management of this case did not provide I, and Defendant A was a construction engineer.

B. The respective sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 5 million for each of the 5 million) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the law applicable to the crime No. 1-B of the facts charged in this case and the addition of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained since the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission.

B. In a case where a prosecutor’s application for modification of a bill of indictment is filed to withdraw all of the facts charged in a substantive concurrent relationship, it shall be deemed to be the revocation of a public prosecution even if the purport of revoking a public prosecution is not clear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do67, Mar. 22, 1988). According to the records, the prosecutor applied Article 97 subparag. 4 and subparag. 40(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, among the facts charged against Defendant B, to delete “Article 97 subparag. 4 of the Framework Act on Construction Industry”, which is applicable to the violation of the Framework Act on Construction Industry due to the placement of construction technicians, from among the facts charged against Defendant B at the second public trial of the court below, and the indictment of this case contains the above part of the facts charged, and even under the applicable law, Article 98, which is both punishment provisions of the Framework Act on Construction, has no provision to punish the representative where the representative committed a violation under Article 97 subparag. 4.