The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the part of the facts charged in the instant case that an architect prescribed in the former part of Article 10 of the Building Judicial Act, among the facts charged, had another person provide an architectural service using his name, and acquitted the latter part of the first instance judgment, on the part that the latter part of the same Article lent his/her architect’s license to another person, on the grounds that the Defendant was found not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence to support that the Defendant had F, etc. conduct supervision on the construction work of the Nam-gu Incheon District H collective housing, using his/her name, or that the Defendant had lent his

In light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating Article 39-2 subparag. 3 of the Building Judicial Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.