The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is that Defendant B entered as an employee of Defendant C and performed his duties as a diving technician, and it does not lend his qualification certificate to Defendant A.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants on the grounds that it is too unreasonable to impose a fine of two million won on each of the Defendants.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is Defendant A’s representative director, Defendant C is a corporation with the purpose of underwater construction business, etc., and Defendant B is a person holding a national technical qualification certificate (qualified number: D).

No person shall lend or lend a national technical qualification certificate issued by the competent Minister to any third person, or arrange the lending.

1) around June 18, 2013, Defendant A proposed that “A, at the office of Sungnam-si, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., located in building E E (Seoul-gu), “a person acquiring an essential qualification certificate in the process of registering underwater construction business to Sungnam-si, requires employment of the person acquiring an essential qualification certificate. A national technical qualification certificate is borrowed from the above B from the above date and time to March 14, 2014.” Accordingly, Defendant A borrowed a national technical qualification certificate from the above time and time to another person. Defendant B borrowed the national technical qualification certificate from June 18, 2013 to March 14, 2014, Defendant A lent the above qualification certificate to the above A from June 18, 2013 to March 14, 2014. Accordingly, Defendant C’s representative director lent the national technical qualification certificate to another person, which is the national technical qualification certificate of the Defendant C, as described in the above paragraph (1).

B. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.