The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment in case of Defendant A and two years of suspended sentence in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal prior to their judgment.

The lower court applied Article 95-2 Subparag. 2, Article 21(1), and Article 21(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017) (amended by Act No. 1478, Mar. 21, 2017) with respect to the Defendants’ violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, but Article 6 of the Addenda of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry amended as above and enforced as of September 22, 2017 provides that the penal provisions for the violation before the enforcement of the said Act shall be governed by the previous

According to evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, Defendant B demanded that Defendant C be supplied with construction works under the name of the corporation C prior to the enforcement of the above Act, and Defendant A be supplied with construction works by lending the said company name from Defendant B. Thus, Articles 96 subparag. 3 and 21(1) (legal penalty: imprisonment with labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall apply to each of the above crimes committed by the Defendants.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this part cannot be maintained.

In a case where the facts constituting an offense acknowledged by the court are identical without difference in the facts charged, even if the prosecutor sought the application of the new law after the revision of the corporation at the time of trial, there is no concern that there is no difference in the seriousness of the punishment for the offense, and thus, it is appropriate to apply the old law as a time of action without going through the amendment procedure of indictment