Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the actual operator of the “D” as prescribed in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul and 313.

A person who intends to conduct construction business shall register with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Nevertheless, the defendant from July 26, 2012 to the same year.

8. By July 1, 200, the F High School located in Jung-gu, Seoul and Seoul E had a meal room floor floor and partitions of 19,944,00 won in construction cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol and protocol of statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the accusation, disbursement resolution, deposit slip, and construction contract;

1. Article 96 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Articles 96 subparagraph 1 and 9 (1) of the same Act on the selection of applicable criminal facts and punishment, and selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act stated that the defendant's act of this case was done in trust as it was not punishable.

On the other hand, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's own act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it means that an act of misunderstanding is not punishable when there is a legitimate ground for misunderstanding, and it is generally accepted that it does not constitute a crime as permitted by the law in case of a general crime, but in case of one's own special circumstances, it is not punishable if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2943, Aug. 18, 200)

In addition, it is difficult to see that there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendant's act does not constitute a crime due to the circumstances alleged by the law.