Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that, in violation of the former part of Article 10 of the Construction Justice Act, the construction private person Defendant B, D, and F had the other party Defendant A, C, and E provide the architectural service using his name.

Thus, the part of the indictment stating "shall not lend a certificate of qualification" is clearly stated in the middle of each indictment, and it shall be deleted ex officio as it constitutes unnecessary description.

A. Defendant A and Defendant B are the actual operators of “G”, and Defendant B is an architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services, such as matters concerning the investigation and appraisal of buildings, by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from the end of January 2015, Defendant B, instead of receiving KRW 2 million each month from Defendant A, had Defendant A provide an architect service using the Defendant’s name, and Defendant A operated the building office with the trade name “G” from the end of January 2015 to October 17, 2016, such as being delegated with an architect service by using Defendant B’s name. Defendant A operated the building office with the trade name “G” from the end of January 2015 to the end of October 17, 2016, using Defendant B’s name.

B. Defendant C and Defendant D are the actual operators of “I”, and Defendant D is an architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services, such as matters concerning the investigation and appraisal of buildings, by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from around October 2005, Defendant D, instead of receiving KRW 2 million each month from Defendant C from Defendant C, had Defendant C provide an architect service using Defendant D’s name, and Defendant C operated the construction office with the trade name “I” from around A, 2005 to October 17, 2016, by using Defendant D’s name.

(c).