The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s in-depth trial, such as: (a) the fact that the Defendant was aware of and against the crime; (b) the instant crime was committed by paying the money; and (c) the Defendant was leased the name of construction; (d) it was unfavorable to the legislative intent of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the prevention of defective construction works, proper construction works, and sound development of construction projects; and (e) the relevant crime was committed against the representative director A of the Defendant who was charged with the instant crime, and (e) it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s punishment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or to maintain the reasonable discretion, comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the circumstance leading up to the crime, means and consequence leading to the commission of the crime;

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.