All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) Defendant A was suspended at the time of preparing a standard work contract for daily workers for construction (hereinafter “instant work contract”) with Defendant A as an on-site agent of the owner (F), but Defendant A was entitled to prepare the instant work contract because it did not have an on-site agent.

Since it was believed that there was no intention to prepare the private document for qualification.

2) Defendant B did not know that the instant labor contract was drafted with qualification as a master, and thus, Defendant B did not have the intent to exercise private documents prepared as a master qualification.

In addition, since it is not a business of one's own electrical construction, it is required to register in accordance with the law.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of one million won, and a fine of one million won for Defendant B: a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court as to Defendant A’s assertion, namely, ① the owner F was in charge of management and supervision at the construction site upon entering into a contract for E construction work with Defendant A, and Defendant A was in charge of management and supervision at the construction site, and Defendant A was directly employed by Defendant B as his husband to perform the said construction work (the page 58, page 84 of the trial record), ② the owner F’s husband’s interest on the construction site: “Defendant A suspended construction work due to the suspension of construction work on or around March 31, 2015 and had another construction business operator do the remaining construction work on or around April 10, 2015” (the trial record No. 70, 73 of the trial record); ③ Defendant A also was in charge of the police around March 31, 2015.

I think I think.

Defendant

B The work contract was not prepared by F with delegation from F at the time of preparing the work contract, but the defendant B prepared the work at that time.

Dominated Dominated Domins

It will be an issue that would have been significantly problematic.