All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. According to the details of computerized processing of the architectural administrative system, Defendant A, C, and E, the chief executive officer, processed a number of building reports and permissions using the ID under the name of the architect.

Defendant

B does not have any details of entry into and departure from reinforcement level, or monetary content with Defendant A, the office chief.

B. The Defendants A, C, and E, who have well known the actual state of the certified architect office, stated that they were operating the pertinent certified architect office. In the case of new construction of a building, only the certified architect could design the building, the said Defendants prepared a new design drawing and received it to the competent authority.

C. If the head of affairs, who is not an architect, independently provided the foregoing services in excess of the level of assisting the architect, is an essential content of the design drawing and authorization and permission services for the competent authority, it constitutes a violation of the Certified Architects Act in itself.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor also argued the same purport as the above argument in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument by explaining the grounds for judgment.

B. The first instance court’s determination was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s determination after ex post facto determination, inasmuch as there was no objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the process of the hearing, even though the objective reason was not newly revealed.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding that is against logical and empirical rules, etc. is significantly unfair to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017).

Based on the above legal principles, there is no objective reason that could affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and the court below has duly adopted it.