The judgment below

Among the crimes against Defendant C, the part of each crime of No. 1 through No. 5 of the crime sight table as shown in the judgment of the court below against Defendant C.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on each crime set forth in the annexed Table 1 and 2 attached Table 1 and 2 of the judgment below which the court below found guilty, the statutory penalty for each violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry under the annexed Table 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the annexed Table 1 and 2") shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding 10 million won pursuant to Article 96 subparagraph 4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 8477 of May 17, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the "former Framework Act on the Construction Industry") in the case of Defendant C and Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”), the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 9875 of Dec. 29, 2009) shall be a fine not exceeding ten million won, which is a fine under Article 96 subparagraph 4 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 98137, Dec. 21, 2007, 207). 1).

Article 96 Subparag. 4 and Article 21 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry “the act that the constructor has another person receive or execute construction works using his name or trade name, using his/her name or trade name,” is completed when he/she let another person receive or begins construction works using his/her name or trade name (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do883, Apr. 12, 2007). The charges pertaining to the act that the Defendant C received or performed construction works using his/her trade name on August 10, 207 and Oct. 31, 207 by using his/her trade name on October 31, 2007 are apparent that the statute of limitations has already expired at the expiration of three years from December 28, 2010, which is the date of the instant indictment, and thus, it is clear that the statute of limitations has expired. Accordingly, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered pursuant to Article 326 Subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 3.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is the judgment of the court below.