사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the original court’s punishment (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Each of the instant offenses is a case in which the Defendant, while serving as a staff member of the quality management team of the K-2 K-2, which is the main trading company, has forged the test report, such as the name of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, in the name of the Special Metropolitan City and Small and Medium Business Administration, in the name of 35 times, and interfered with the quality inspection work of the victim by using the altered test report through 385 times, and thereby has interfered with the quality inspection work of the victim and has supplied the victim with the altered parts to the K-2, etc., which are the main trading company, by taking charge of the business of requesting an authorized agency for the test and analysis and submitting the test report received from the authorized agency to the victim, and has forged the test report, such as the name of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration, in the name of the Special Metropolitan City and Medium Business Administration, in the name of the Special Metropolitan City and Medium Business Administration.
The fact that the defendant's test report, which is a document for quality assurance, is supplied with military arms parts by forgery, alteration, and enforcement of the test report, which is a document for the defendant's lead, is not easy in that the performance and safety of the core military weapons in direct connection with the national defense for the economic interest of the KCAB, is not subject to punishment against the defendant.
However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and actively cooperated with the investigation by the investigative agency, and the victim requested the supplier company, such as the Dispute Settlement BankB, etc., to attach the results of the official test conducted by him/her from 2011 in order to reduce costs by using the equipment owned by him/her, and the supplier was requested to submit the results of the official test to the public agency because he/she did not possess the relevant equipment and received the results of the test from the public agency.