The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The facts charged of this case is not that the defendant had a certified architect under the former part of Article 10 of the Building Judicial Act allow another person to provide an architectural service using his name, but that the certified architect of the latter part of Article 10 of the Building Judicial Act lent his certificate of qualification to another person.

The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the first decision of the court below which convicted the Defendant F, etc. on the charge that the Defendant used the Defendant’s name to conduct supervision over construction works violates the principle of disadvantage and disadvantage. The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant lent the Defendant’s certified architect qualification to F

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of unfavorable and unfavorable treatment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.