Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

No cultural heritage repair engineer or cultural heritage repair technician shall lend his/her certificate to any other person, and no person shall use any other cultural heritage repair engineer or cultural heritage repair technician by borrowing his/her certificate.

In addition, a comprehensive cultural heritage repair business entity shall have at least four cultural heritage repair engineers who work full time and at least six cultural heritage repair technicians, registration shall not be made by fraudulent or other illegal means.

On February 8, 2013, the Defendants leased the Defendants’ license of cultural heritage repair engineer in the name of the Defendants to F Office, F Office, Inc., the E 502, on condition that the Defendants receive KRW 10,000,000 per annum.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the fourth trial records;

1. Statements made by witnesses G in the fourth trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against G, H, I, J, and K;

1. Each prosecutor's statement of L, M, N,O, P, K, Q, and R;

1. Registers of cultural heritage repair business, etc., employment contracts, certificates of deposits without passbook, statements of transactions, certificates of deposit transaction records, and detailed statement of each currency;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes of internal investigation reports and investigation reports (including attached documents);

1. Article 59 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Cultural Heritage and Articles 10 (3) of the Act on the Selection of Relevant Acts and Punishment concerning Criminal Facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendants’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendants did not perform the said company’s work because the F did not receive an order for the limited construction work, and the said company did not perform the said work.