Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for six months, respectively.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A and Defendant B are the actual operator of the “F Construction Office”, and Defendant B is the architect.

No certified architect shall allow another person to provide an architectural service, such as matters concerning the investigation and appraisal of buildings, by using his/her name, or lend his/her certificate of qualification to another person.

Nevertheless, Defendant B, instead of receiving KRW 2.2 million each month from Defendant A from around 2010 to Defendant A, had Defendant A render an architect services using the name of Defendant B, and Defendant A, around January 19, 201, was delegated with the permission for diversion of farmland from Defendant B by using the name of Defendant B, etc. from around January 19, 201 to February 201, operated the construction office with the trade name called “F construction office” in Incheon Ha from around 2010 to around February 2016, and used Defendant B’s name to provide an architect services.

2. Defendant A

A. From around January 19, 2010, the Defendant: (a) was a person who operates a construction office in the name of “F Construction Office” in Incheon Strengthening Military H; (b) was delegated by the Victim G G with the duties of converting farmland from the victim I owned by the son, Incheon J, and K, and was granted KRW 43.5 million as farmland conversion design expenses and farmland diversion charges; and (c) was kept for the victim, the Defendant embezzled the said duties by arbitrarily consuming the office operating expenses, living expenses, etc. around that time.

B. From August 31, 2012, the Defendant interfered with the execution of official duties by fraudulent means, without obtaining permission to convert farmland from G by using the cost of planning and design for the diversion of farmland granted by G and the cost of diversion of farmland, the Defendant received from the number of strengthened military forces around August 31, 2012 the order to restore farmland for illegal use from Incheon J, K, and the above order to restore farmland for illegal use from J, K, and on February 13, 2014, which took place on the above illegal diversion farmland covered by Amcom, and created the same external appearance of the removal of Amcom and the restoration into farmland, and thereby, the Defendant restores it to its original state.