입찰방해등
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant B and the result of the death of No. 1 through No. 16 in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below.
1. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court rendered a judgment on August 17, 2015 on the charge of forging a private document and uttering of the above investigation document, and on the charge of fraud No. 1 through No. 16 of the List of Crimes Attached to the lower judgment, each of which was acquitted. The Defendant filed an appeal on the guilty portion among the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor appealed only for fraud No. 1 through No. 16 of the List of Crimes Attached to the lower judgment among the parts of each of the aforementioned innocence. As such, the lower court’s judgment became final and conclusive on August 17, 2015 and excluded the acquitted portion on the charge of forging a private document and exercising the above investigation document from the object of the judgment of the lower court.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) Of the guilty portion of the lower judgment, Defendant B (i) was authorized by the head of the W Management Division having authority to prepare a certificate of delivery performance in the name of representative director in the name of the W Management Division regarding the forgery of a private document and the exercise of the said investigation document among the parts of the lower judgment’s convictions, and Defendant B, who was delegated by the V, was delegated the authority to prepare a document. Defendant B, who was delegated by the V, was given the authority to prepare a document in succession, and the Defendant was given the R’s consent.
It is found that the authority to make a comprehensive document was not delegated.
Even if there was an estimated consent.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
(c)
(1) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant B’s not guilty part) was submitted only in the name of J in order to make a duplicate bid with respect to Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts, and the burden of proof of the supply record forged.