Whether it constitutes an act of unregistered business under Article 25 (1) of the Certified Architects Act, other than the location of registered architectural firms.

An act requested to prepare architectural design drawings by leasing an office at the preparatory stage to close a registered architect office and establish a new office in another area is merely an act of receiving orders for the business of the registered architect office, and the above act is not an act of prohibiting the act of the architect office in addition to the location of the architect office registered in the Certified Architects Act unless there is a provision prohibiting the act of the architect office in addition to the location of the architect office registered in the Certified Architects Act.

Article 25 of the Certified Architects Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No.774, 586)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court of the first instance (Supreme Court Decision 85Ma40 delivered on Cheongju District Court)

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) since an architect is prohibited from opening an office or establishing an architect office other than registered architect office, it constitutes an act of unregistered registration under Article 25(1) of the Certified Architects Act; (b) however, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged in this case; (c) it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the Certified Architects Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, according to the statements of the court below, the defendant's statement at the court below, the suspect examination protocol of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, the statement of the non-indicted 1 of the prosecutor's statement, each statement of the prosecutor's statement and each statement of the investigation records attached to the investigation records, the certificate of the architect's license under the name of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the certificate of the architect's registration under the name of the Seoul Mayor Mayor on May 15, 1984, the defendant, after obtaining the architect's license from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on October 31, 1981, opened the office in Gangnam-gu Seoul (Dong name omitted) with the trade name "(title omitted)" on May 15, 1984, and sent it to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayor's office's registration and the architectural design work. The defendant, on September 25, 198 of the same year, prepared the above office's office's construction drawings to close the Seoul office and newly establish the office's office's construction work.

According to the above facts, the above act of the defendant appears to be merely a simple acceptance of order for the business of the Seoul Office, and further, even after examining the Certified Architects Act, unless there is a provision prohibiting the architect business in addition to the location of the registered architect office, the fact that the authority of the Minister of Construction and Transportation with respect to registration was delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor, or the Minister of Construction and Transportation thoroughly supervised such as prohibiting the lending of license, etc., shall not be deemed to constitute a non-registration business even if the defendant who registered his/her architect office in Chungcheongbuk-do in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1, Feb. 25, 1986). Thus, the judgment of the court below that stated the above conclusion is just, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

For the purpose of depositing judge Kim Chang-joon (Presiding Judge)