The application of the law of the court below to "1. Criminal facts" in the judgment below.

A. The Defendants asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) After reviewing the answer data from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs concerning the treatment of cases similar to the facts charged of this case, the Defendants committed the crime of this case. Since the supervision report prepared by conducting structural safety diagnosis, etc. according to the answer data from the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, it is not a false supervision report

B) The Defendants did not recognize that their actions are in violation of the law by reliance on the answer data submitted by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. Thus, Defendant B’s additional assertion constitutes legal error under Article 16 of the Criminal Act. (2) Defendant B committed the instant crime to obtain approval for use under the circumstances where the existing project supervisor failed to submit a supervision report, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A, Defendant C: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of facts as follows: ① Defendant B entered into a construction supervision service contract with Defendant C on August 3, 2012; and Defendant C became qualified as a supervisor from that time; ② the intermediate supervision report of February 5, 2012, which was written by “C” in the confirmation column, was prepared on August 28, 201 by Defendant C and the date of actual preparation and each supervision report were mutually different; the date of preparation stated in each supervision report was written by Defendant C on August 28, 2012; ③ the date of preparation of the supervision report as of August 28, 201, which was written by Defendant C was written by the supervisor on August 28, 2012; ③ the date of preparation of the supervision report as of August 28, 2012, which was written by the supervisor C on July 21, 201, but was written in the supervision column as “C” and “C” on July 28, 20.