All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. It does not necessarily require a architect to directly participate in designing or supervising the gist of the grounds for appeal, but most buildings designed or supervised by F are small-scale and standardized, and supervision can also be conducted by non-permanent supervision, so it is possible for a building private person to attend daily work by Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A conspired to receive an amount of money on condition that Defendant B lend an architect qualification, Defendant A lent an architect qualification certificate to Defendant B, and Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case where Defendant B provided an architect service using Defendant A’s architect qualification certificate. It is consistent with the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

A. The photograph of the architect office F of Daegu Metropolitan City as Defendant A is the list of members of the architectural society, but contact number is Defendant B’s number.

B. The public official I in charge of the building house and the building permit for the Daegu Dong-dong Building and the building permit for the building is “Defendant B has several times at the Daegu Dong-gu Dong Office, and there has been several times since the building permit has been granted in the North Dong-gu Office.

At the Gu office or Dong office of North Korea, there is no main entry of Defendant A and there is no main entry, and if a civil petition is filed by Defendant B at the site, the Gu office made contact with Defendant B and has been represented by Defendant B (Evidence No. 18-20 pages), and the building house and public official of the Daegu Northernbuk-gu office of construction and public official M also made a statement to the effect that “Defendant B was a representative of Defendant B” (Evidence No. 18-20 pages of evidence No. 18-20), and most Defendant B was led by Defendant B.