The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Punishment of a fine not exceeding one million won against A, and a fine for Defendant B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A was unable to perform duties with the qualifications of class 1 mine security engineer on the grounds of health; Defendant B was not involved in the operation of D; Defendant B obtained the qualification certificate from Defendant A for the sole purpose of the instant bidding and registered Defendant A as joint representatives with Defendant A’s certificate; thus, Defendants constitute a violation of the national technical qualification law against the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, with regard to Defendant A’s lending of 1-class mine security engineer qualification certificate to Defendant B and having Defendant D registered himself as D’s joint representative, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone to satisfy the qualification requirements for participation in the instant tender, which is further prescribed by relevant statutes so that Defendant B actually performed the relevant qualification as a mining security engineer after the successful bid, or that a person meeting the relevant qualification requirements as an essential requirement for D’s business license or business operation is permanently stationed in employment.

It is difficult to see it.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in a thorough manner with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

B. On the other hand, the prosecutor made an application for changes in the indictment to add the ancillary charges as stated below, with the name of the conjunctive crime "inception of tender" as "Article 315 of the Criminal Act", while the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment to add the ancillary charges as found below.

This court allowed changes in the bill of amendment and added to the subject of the judgment.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio due to changes in indictment.

The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without omitting the determination of the Defendants’ assertion related to the modified facts charged, and it is again reversed through pleadings.