The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. No certified architect shall allow another person to provide an architectural service using his/her name or lend his/her qualification certificate to another person;

Nevertheless, the Defendant, an architect, received KRW 11 million from D and E on May 2015, and he/she used the Defendant’s name to perform construction supervision work for multi-family housing F in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is acknowledged that D had a Defendant conduct supervision by using the Defendant’s name for the following reasons. A.

D In relation to the instant construction project, a criminal case was led to the confession of a crime, and the judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced to a conviction, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of supervision was committed under the name of the architect

B. D prepares a supervision report in the architectural administrative system called “Ster” and gave approval to the Defendant. At this time, D, not only simply put up the documents related to completion but also puts a column for each item that the supervisor is required to confirm in the supervision report, and only the “comprehensive opinion” column of the supervision report was puts blank.

However, it is necessary to compare and confirm whether the Defendant, who is the supervisor, has constructed the building according to the design plan, and whether the construction materials or materials are suitable for the above supervision report, and then make a direct entry. D, the designer of the instant construction, should not put the body in advance.

C. The Defendant submitted a construction supervision log (from May 26, 2015 to January 13, 2016). On May 26, 2015, the Defendant contained any indication in the “specific engineer’s claim,” “cadastral matters and result of disposal,” and “non-determination,” written over 51 times.