The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 20,000,000.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) was designed for the instant building, and there was a government report that as a supervisor, the construction supervisor would have taken measures to mitigate the number of households by means of measures to revitalize the real estate market at the time of preparing a report on completion of supervision, Defendant A received a construction permit from the owner of the building so that the number of households can be easily increased if such measures are taken in the future, and was designed as a modified structure so that the number of households can be easily increased, and there was no unauthorized construction in collusion with the owner of the building.

B) Since there was no violation of the relevant construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of supervising the instant building, there was only a false report on the completion of supervision, the lower court, which found Defendant A guilty, without having prepared a false report on the completion of supervision, erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were confirmed as to “heat stones and heating facilities” to a supervisor in charge of an emergency situation, Defendant B was already unable to confirm the said facilities as they were laid underground with concrete. In other words, the report on completion of supervision was merely stated in the report on completion of supervision because the parts illegally constructed at the actual site were not discovered, but did not make a false report. (2) The punishment (fine 6 million won) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. The following facts are criminal facts (Defendant A) and facts constituting a violation of the Building Act in relation to the Defendants’ violation of the Building Act due to the preparation and submission of a false supervision completion report among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants when the Prosecutor was in a trial prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants ex officio.