(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노4546 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노4546

건축사법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Whether the defendant, on the grounds of appeal, has conducted false supervision

F, the defendant did not have the supervision of the defendant, and the F did not lend the certified architect's license to the defendant.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) In principle, a court shall not judge a public prosecution by a public prosecutor unless the public prosecution is instituted, and the court shall judge the public prosecutor to the extent that the public prosecution is instituted;

In addition, in order for the court to recognize facts constituting a crime different from those stated in the indictment ex officio without changing the indictment, it should be within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized, and there should be no concerns over causing substantial disadvantages to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do872, Mar. 27, 2008, etc.). (b) The facts charged in this case shall not allow another person to provide an architectural service using his/her name or lend his/her certificate of qualification.

Nevertheless, around March 2015, the Defendant received KRW 4,588,00 from ArchitectF and construction hub G from Do, and he, under his name, lent a certified architect qualification certificate so that he can perform the construction supervision of multi-family housing construction works in 297-35, Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government, and perform construction supervision duties until completion of construction works.

“”.

(c)

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case reveal that “the Defendant: (a) the F et al. entrusted the construction supervision services with the name of the Defendant; and (b) the F et al. lent a certified architect license to the F et al. so that the construction supervision services may be performed until the completion of the construction works; and (c) the Defendant is clearly prosecuted for having lent a certified architect’s license to another person after the latter part of Article 10 of the Construction Act, not having allowed another person to provide a certified architect services using his name; and (d) the Defendant

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 3. 27. 선고 2007도8772 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.11.29 2018도9312

-인천지방법원 2017.11.24 2017고정134

-인천지방법원 2018.08.17 2017노4647

-대법원 2018.11.09 2018도13732

-인천지방법원 2018.08.31 2018노578