The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court, on September 7, 2016, issued a summary order of KRW 7 million (200,000,000) at the Seoul Central District Court issued by the Seoul Central District Court on September 7, 2016, issued a summary order of KRW 7 million (2016,00,000,000), and the said summary order became final and conclusive, on the grounds that the instant criminal facts and the instant criminal facts are in the relationship between the final and conclusive summary order and the instant criminal facts.

Since it is reasonable to view the above-mentioned summary order as effective as to the facts charged in this case that took place before its issuance.

Therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced to the defendant.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the criminal facts of the confirmed summary order leased F’s construction business registration certificate to 13 constructors from November 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and the criminal facts of the instant case leased F’s construction business registration certificate to 13 constructors from November 10, 2015 to April 5, 2016 in relation to the construction work in total 328 sites.

When considering the legislative purport, etc. of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for the purpose of promoting the proper execution of construction works and the sound development of the construction industry, the lending of construction business registration certificate, etc., in principle, shall be deemed to constitute a separate crime for each act. Criminal facts of this case and summary order established in the previous criminal facts are different from that of the lending, and the contents of the construction work being supplied or supplied or executed are distinguishable from each other, so there is a substantive concurrent crime not as a single one.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The instant case involving the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is the construction work in the area where the Defendant was in total 328.