수도불통등
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
Defendant .
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the embezzlement of the victim D reporters, and Defendant A received money from D reporters according to the contract agreement with D reporters. Thus, Defendant A is not in the position of custodian of the said money.
Defendant
A The amount of money paid to A from D Dogwon is not KRW 254,072,00.
2) The reasons why the water supply was not caused to the hard village of the hearing on the water dynasing, did not hold a hearing as to whether the groundwater itself was not short due to the KTX tunnel construction.
The court below did not decide on this part of the defendant A's crime even though the victim should be accurately confirmed.
It is also necessary to review that some community residents have received drinking water from exposure.
3) Trial failure to examine the embezzlement of the victim J village residents, misunderstanding the facts, and misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant A is not in the custodian’s position, and is in the custodian’s position.
In addition, the goods kept by Defendant A are Pyeongtaek-si, N, and AO land (hereinafter “instant land”) and cannot be deemed as money paid by the Korea Electric Power Corporation.
Although the court below knew that the residents of the village could not receive the cash directly from the Korean Electric Power Corporation, and should have examined whether the village joint project was requested, whether the project was actually implemented, etc., but did not examine the case.
4) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant A against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.
2) In full view of the following: (a) Defendant B and Defendant A’s relationship with the victim J village residents; and (b) the process of granting Korean power construction subsidies; and (c) Defendant B’s aforementioned embezzlement.