Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that, in violation of the former part of Article 10 of the Construction Justice Act, a building private person Defendant B and D had the other party Defendant A and C provide an architect services using his name.

Thus, the part of the indictment stating "shall not lend a certificate of qualification" is clearly stated in the middle of each indictment, and it shall be deleted ex officio as it constitutes unnecessary description.

A. Defendant A and Defendant B are the actual operators of “Building History E” and Defendant B is the architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from February 26, 2013 to November 201, 2015, Defendant B had Defendant B provide a certified architect services using the name of Defendant B in the “Construction Corporation E” located in Incheon F and II from February 26, 2013 to Defendant B, and Defendant A provided a certified architect services by using Defendant B’s name in the “Construction Corporation E” office for the same period.

B. Defendant C and D Defendant C are the actual operator of “G architect office” and Defendant D is an architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from January 27, 2014 to December 16, 2016, Defendant D had Defendant C provide an architect service using Defendant D’s name from “G architect office” located in Incheon H, and Defendant C provided an architect service by using Defendant D’s name during the same period.

2. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was directly conducted by Defendant B under his own responsibility.

Defendant

A is only a fact that I, who is an son, worked as an employee of A and was residing in the office to introduce a case to A, but also an architect service.