The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that, insofar as the Defendant submitted relevant documents while filing an application for a building permit in the name of a person who is not a real owner, the result of the building permit cannot be deemed to be due to insufficient examination by the public official.

However, such determination is based on the premise that the defendant, as an architect, has a duty to examine whether the person who requested a building permit under the name of the person with the right to build permit is the actual architect, but the architect does not have the authority to examine whether the person who requested the building permit is the actual architect. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that theO stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant believed to believe that the Defendant would not be at issue,” but did not have any O in relation to the instant application for the construction permit, and there was no way for the Defendant to divide the O into two or more stories.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the O’s above statement, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is an architect who operates “(State)N”.

No construction or alteration of the purpose of use of a building in a development restriction zone shall be permitted: Provided, That in the case of a building demolished due to the execution of a public works project, in the case of an inevitable building to be removed due to a disaster, or in the case of other local conditions, the construction of a building is permitted on the land adjacent to the village district or village district, and such reconstruction right is allowed only for the housing owner at the time of removal, and it shall not be transferred to

Nevertheless, the defendant around May 2013, P.O.