beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.08.08 2017노1387

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the defendants' oil payments, rents for tools or equipment, and the quantity and unit prices of materials supplied by the defendants to the victim M&A (hereinafter referred to as the "victim M&A") are less than the actual amount, or falsely stated a transaction statement and electronic tax invoice, which are the contractor, as if they were actually constructed or leased with equipment, are issued to N in the head of L quality office N who is the contractor, and N in the case of the victim company's site warden, claiming an excessive payment from the victim company through N and I, and the defendants received an excessive payment from the victim company. Since I was the victim company's site warden, the victim company was aware of this fact, and the victim company was unaware of this fact, and there was no deception from the victim company.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged, without sufficiently examining the facts, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (the lower court’s sentence against Defendant D and Defendant D: fine of KRW 4,00,000)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendants also recognize that the Defendants entered oil prices, tools, or equipment rents, the quantity of materials supplied, and unit prices, etc. supplied to the victim company, and issued a false statement and electronic tax invoice to the head of L quality office, the contractor, as if they were actually engaged in construction or leased, and N filed a claim for an excessive payment from the victim company through the victim company’s on-site director I, and that they received an excessive payment from the victim company.

The court below has duly adopted the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of the first instance, such as the legal statement of the AJ witness.