The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, before partial amendment by Act No. 10719, May 24, 2011 to the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry

c. The term “former Act”

Article 96 Subparag. 4 and Article 21(1) of the former Act apply to a constructor. However, Article 98(2) of the former Act provides that where a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other worker of a corporation or individual commits an offense under Article 94, 95, 95-2, 96, or subparagraphs 1 and 1-2 of Article 97 with respect to the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under each relevant provision. The purport of this provision is to punish both the offender or individual who is the constructor or the constructor who does not directly perform the act in violation of each of the provisions of this Article. Thus, this provision is subject to the application of the said penal provision to the constructor who is not the constructor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do534, Jun. 13, 1997).

Furthermore, the court below applied Article 96 subparagraph 4 and Article 21 (1) of the former Act, which is the penal provision of this Article to the constructor's act. The purport of the court below is that the defendant is an offender under Article 98 (2) of the former Act even if he is not a constructor, if he is such an offender.