The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) thought that an on-site civil engineering officer of H’s earth and sand act would not constitute a separate issue; and (b) that the Defendant intended to assist and construct C, who is an owner of the building, committed an on-site civil engineering act.

Since a false statement was made to an investigative agency, the court below found the criminal defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The crime under Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act does not require that the crime is a dangerous crime and practically interfere with the exercise of criminal justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do3080, Mar. 3, 1995). Here, “a person who commits a crime” refers to “a person who commits a crime” under the criminal charge of a crime and who commits a crime under the investigation only if the person is under the investigation, not a serious crime, or even if he/she was under the disposition of non-guilty suspicion ultimately, it does not affect the establishment of the above crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9139, Feb. 22, 2007; 81Do1931, Jan. 26, 1982). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly examined by the court below, the defendant’s assertion that the defendant was under the investigation of a crime under the control of a mountainous district beyond H, and thus, did not actively appear in the police and the defendant’s statement under the circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (the judgment of the court below).