Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

No certified architect shall allow another person to provide an architectural service by using his/her name, or lend his/her qualification certificate to another person.

Nevertheless, on August 2014, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from F and G from E architect office located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, and used the name of the Defendant for the construction of the apartment building in the Nam-gu, Incheon, and performed the supervision of construction works in the apartment building located in H in the name of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A copy of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect with respect to F by the prosecution (three times);

1. Copy of the protocol concerning the examination of suspect with regard to I; and

1. Copy of each police statement made to J;

1. Application for a building permit, a construction supervision contract, a construction supervision report, supervision report, etc., detailed standards for the supervision of construction works, investigation report (attached to the case concerned), and investigation report (F and G final judgment attached thereto); and application of statutes;

1. Article 39 Subparag. 3 and Article 10 of the former Construction Justice Act (amended by Act No. 12969, Jan. 6, 2015); and the selection of fines for criminal facts

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although there was a resident supervisor of multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant construction”) stated in the facts constituting a crime as indicated in the judgment, he was negligent in performing his duties, the Defendant did not allow another person to perform the instant construction supervision, and the Defendant himself directly performed the construction supervision.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant was a supervisor of the instant construction project and directly engaged in the work at issue.

It is difficult to view the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

(a)F and G build new multi-family housing in Incheon, including the instant construction;