The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (unfair sentencing) recognizes the defendant's wrong and reflects the defendant's wrong, and the part concerning the difference between the design and the present situation in the facts charged in the instant case should be 2,400 meters at the diameter of not more than 1,875m or 1,950m in diameter, not more than 1,875m or 1,950m in diameter, and the part concerning the protruding underground floor or the part concerning the underground floor above the underground floor is not different from the design and the present situation before the completion of construction due to the situation that the occupants walk the reinforced soil to secure the parking lot after the completion of construction. In light of the above, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the community service order for 2 years and 80 hours in the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case in collusion with A, etc. requires five times the following facts: (a) the defendant committed the crime of this case with regard to multi-household multi-family housing by entering the inspection report in collusion with A, which was not designated as an agent for on-site investigation and inspection confirmation (hereinafter “special inspection”); (b) in mind, the defendant prepared a new inspection report in collusion with A, etc.; (c) had the above architect registered as a collaborative agent for the establishment of the construction administration system; and (d) falsely entered the above architect into the current status column after completing the use approval investigation and inspection protocol; and (c) had the client sent it to obtain the approval for use of the building; and (d) interfere with the legitimate execution of the public official duties of the public official in charge of Gwangju City construction and construction by fraudulent means; and (d) the fact that it is not good that the crime of having performed the architect's service using the name of the Architect J should be reflected in sentencing on the difference between the design and the present status among the charges of this case; (d) the defendant failed to obtain the approval for the inspection report.