All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) related to the fact that Defendants A and Defendant B violated the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of the Construction Industry by misunderstanding the facts (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) are omitted and are only “Defendant B”.

In the case of another company, the term "I Corporation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") ordered at the Kunpo-si Waterworks Business Office was awarded a contract under the name of Defendant B after the contract was awarded in the name of Defendant B, and there was no fact of lending the name.

B) In relation to the Defendants’ violation of their respective national technical qualification laws, the Defendants recognized the fact of committing R (2) , AJ (14) , and AL (16) , among the list of offenses in attached Form 1 (1). However, in the case of the remaining holders of national technical qualification certificates, there was no fact that Defendants B, C, Defendant D, and Defendant E were actually employed as each employee and only leased the qualification certificates.

C) Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D’s each violation of the Construction Technology Promotion Act constituted a crime in the part X (hereinafter referred to as “X”) out of the list of offenses in the attached Table Nos. 2, but in the case of U (hereinafter referred to as “U”) only from October 2013 to April 2016. In the case of other holders of the remainder of construction technology experience, there was no fact that only the actual employee was employed in Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D and only the actual employee was leased.

2) Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; 5 million won of fine; 3 million won of each fine; 1.5 million won of each fine; 1.5 million won of each of Defendant E) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

(a) For the purpose of Article 21 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry concerning the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of Defendant A and Defendant B, construction works are prohibited by using his name or trade name.