Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant B and D, an architect, used his name to allow the other party Defendant A and C to provide architectural services in violation of the former part of Article 10 of the Certified Architects Act.

If so, it is clear that the part of the indictment stating “shall not lend a certificate of qualification” constitutes unnecessary description in the middle of each charge of indictment, and thus, it shall be deleted ex officio.

Defendant

A and Defendant A are the actual operators of “E architect office”, and Defendant B is the architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from January 201 to July 2015, Defendant B had Defendant B provide an architect service using the name of Defendant B from “E architect office” in the F, and “E architect office” in the Incheon Strengthening Group F, and “E architect office” in the first floor, and Defendant A provided an architect service by using Defendant B’s name during the same period.

B. Defendant C and D Defendant C are an actual operator of “G architect office” and Defendant D is an architect.

No certified architect shall allow other persons to provide certified architect services by using his/her name.

Nevertheless, from January 2013 to August 2015, Defendant D had Defendant C provide an architect service using Defendant D’s name, and Defendant C provided an architect service using Defendant D’s name during the same period. Defendant C provided an architect service using Defendant D’s name.

2. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion was that Defendant B provided an architect service under his own responsibility.

Defendant

A Where a person is employed by the secretary of the architect office operated by Defendant B and is awarded work as an employee, he/she shall be granted piece rates from Defendant B.