The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, was actually employed by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) during the period specified in the facts charged, and did not lend the Defendant’s national technical qualification certificate or let the said company perform construction work by using the Defendant’s name.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the court below 1) The Defendant is a person holding a national technical qualification engineer qualification certificate on June 1, 198.

No construction technician shall allow another person to perform construction works or construction technology services in his/her name or lend his/her national technical qualification certificate to another person.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) from May 11, 201 to October 31, 201; (b) from October 1, 2013 to April 23, 2014; (c) from October 201 to December 28, 2014 to December 28, 2015, the Defendant requires an employee with a certificate of qualification to establish a construction company; and (d) from D’s director E, “where construction works are carried out, it is necessary for the employee with a certificate of qualification to register as an employee with a certificate of qualification who holds a construction engineer in the above D (State); (c) upon request, the Defendant registered as an employee with a certificate of qualification in the above D (State) but did not work normally for the company or did not work for the company.

Accordingly, the defendant lent a national technical qualification certificate to D (State) and let D (State) perform construction work.

2) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court convicted the Defendant by taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

B. However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

The reasons are as follows.

1) The legislative purpose and content of the national technical qualification law, and its contents.