Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Defendant

A is a certified architect who has been entrusted with on-site investigation, inspection and confirmation related to approval for the use of multi-family houses in Daegu Suwon-gu C by the competent authorities.

Any person who has the right to permit may have a person who has filed a report on the establishment of an architect office vicariously conduct on-site investigations, inspections, and confirmations with respect to approval, etc. for the use of a building, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, and no person who vicariously conducts such business shall report the results of such on-site investigations, inspections,

Nevertheless, on June 22, 2017, the Defendant prepared a false report on the approval for use and inspection with the content that “the ceiling, lighting, and ventilation of a show room” at the time of the construction permission was consistent with the design drawings at the time of the site investigation, and submitted it to the public official in charge of the Susung-gu Office, even though it was not constructed in accordance with the drawings at the time of the construction permission because the remaining windows of the above multi-family house was not installed in the E architect office located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police officer concerning F, G, H, and I;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. Complaint;

1. Drawings;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 109 of the relevant Act and Articles 27 (2) and 27 (1) of the Building Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 334(1) or more of the Criminal Procedure Act.