The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has positive impacts on the fact that the defendant is a energy-related company D, which is operated by the defendant. Although the existence of the above company does not necessarily require an employee with a certificate of an energy management engineer, the fact that E with a certificate of an energy management engineer is registered as an employee when evaluating the technical capabilities of the above company from outside has positive impacts. Thus, while the defendant employs E as employee, the defendant used the certificate of an energy management engineer owned by E in substance.

In light of the facts that the defendant committed a crime of violation of national technical qualification by lending his/her certificate, E is subject to a summary order and the above summary order became final and conclusive, the fact that the defendant borrowed his/her certificate of qualification as an energy management engineer from E can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Lending of national technical qualification certificates prohibited under Articles 26(3)1, 15(2), 26(2)1, and 15(2) of the National Technical Qualification Act refers to lending of national technical qualification certificates directly to a third person who knows that he/she is a person with a national technical qualification certificate as if he/she were a person with a national technical qualification certificate and intends to perform the duties as a person with a national technical qualification. If a unqualified person was not a person with a national technical qualification certificate, he/she shall not be deemed as lending of a national technical qualification certificate. Whether an unqualified person was performing his/her duties as a national technical qualification holder shall be determined depending on whether a non-qualified person actually performs his/her duties as a national technical qualification holder, regardless of whether it was a form in which a national technical qualification holder directly performs his/her duties (Supreme Court Decision 2007 March 29, 2007).