The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A 1) In relation to the crime of occupational breach of trust (misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of the facts), a contract entered into in relation to the “F Creation Corporation” (hereinafter the above arboretum Creation Corporation itself) upon Defendant B’s request (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”). Although there is a dispute, among others, a contract entered into in relation to Defendant B’s part entrusted by Defendant B for convenience does not constitute a subcontract.

Even if the subcontract was concluded, the Defendant committed a breach of trust in light of the details of the contract and the progress of the subcontracted project in this case.

and there was no intention to commit a breach of trust, or there was a conspiracy with Defendant B.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. Since Hina paid a part of the construction price to Defendant B in advance, the damage to the victim association was incurred.

It is also difficult to see it.

Therefore, although this part of the facts charged is not guilty, the court below found the defendant guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) As to the crime of violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), even if the contract entered into with Defendant B does not constitute a subcontract, it does not constitute a subcontract contract, and even if it falls under a subcontract contract, it does not constitute a construction subject to the application of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Even if it is applicable, there is justifiable reason for the

Therefore, even though this part of the facts charged is not guilty, the court below found the defendant guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (7 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant’s subcontracting work of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle regarding occupational breach of trust.