춘천지방법원 2017.07.25 2017고정44



Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.


Punishment of the crime

On August 12, 2015, the Defendant visited the E (State) office operated by the victim D (State) located in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, Seoul on August 12, 2015, to the effect that “The Defendant would normally pay the price of the waste generated from the construction site, if he/she takes charge of the waste disposal.”

However, there was no intention or ability to pay the cost of construction waste disposal normally.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim disposed of all the construction wastes, but did not know the cost of KRW 6,560,000, thereby acquiring financial benefits equivalent to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment of documents for permission for exclusive use in mountain areas);

1. Article 347 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant: (a) the public official in the Human Gun Administration and the female employees deposited KRW 7.9 million for the cost of restoration to the original state; (b) the Defendant requested waste disposal to the victim with the belief that he would incur the money; (c) the Defendant did not receive the money from the Human Gun Administration; (d) the Defendant was unable to pay the cost of waste disposal to the victim; and (e) the Defendant had the right to the Defendant within the limits of the cost of waste disposal, the alternative forest cost for which the Defendant is entitled to claim against the F, out of the cost of creating the alternative forest with the authority to claim against the F, and even if the F did not request the Defendant, the Defendant’s act constitutes administrative management and thus constitutes a claim for reimbursement of the cost and a claim for compensation against F, thereby equivalent to the cost of waste disposal.