건축사법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, did not allow G and H to conduct supervisory duties, and the Defendant was insufficient, but directly conducted supervisory duties.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
(a) No certified architect shall allow another person to provide an architectural service using his/her name or lend his/her certificate of qualification to another person;
Nevertheless, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the architect G, construction hub H H in the N architect office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, on October 2014, and he used the Defendant’s name to conduct construction supervision of the construction work of the I collective housing in the Nam-gu, Incheon.
B. Determination 1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). 2) In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone, by the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, led the defendant G and H to perform supervisory duties of the Corporation as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter "the Construction of this case").
It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
A) G and H led to the confession that in the case of Incheon District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Order 7493, G and H had been performing a certified architect’s business by using seven certified architect names, including the Defendant.