Defendants are not guilty.

1. The holder of a national technical qualification certificate of the substance of the facts charged shall carry out his/her duty in good faith and shall not lend or borrow his/her national technical qualification certificate to another person;

A. Defendant A received and lent the first-class certificate of national technical qualification electrical construction engineer B acquired from May 15, 2005 to April 18, 2010 from Msan-si E’s F office and KRW 80,000 per month;

B. Defendant B received and lent the first-class certificate of electrical construction engineer’s first-class certificate of KRW 80,000 at the same date, time, and place as above paragraph (1).

2. The act of lending a national technical qualification certificate prohibited under Article 26(3)1 and Article 15(2) of the National Technical Qualifications Act refers to the act of lending a national technical qualification certificate to another person with the knowledge that he/she would perform his/her duties as a person holding the national technical qualification by using his/her national technical qualification certificate and consenting to or understand the use of such certificate. If the person holding the national technical qualification has actually engaged in his/her duties, it shall not be deemed a lending of the national technical qualification certificate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do668, May 11, 2007). In addition, if an unqualified person did not perform his/her duties as a person holding the national technical qualification certificate,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do934 Decided March 29, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 97Do60 Decided May 16, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 94Do1937 Decided December 23, 1994, etc.). Defendant B’s business with respect to the qualification certificate of this case is performing the responsibility execution and technical management of the above construction work at the electrical construction site that the constructor contracted (see Articles 16(1) and 18 of the Electrical Construction Business Act). Accordingly, in order to be found guilty of the facts charged of this case, the constructor contracted for electrical construction and reported Defendant B to the field agent, and Defendant B performed the said construction work at the site of electrical construction by the constructor.