Residence

Reference domicile

Defendant who has converted 100,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

From July 2012, 2012, the Defendant operated ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a person who works as the general manager of the foregoing building from around July 2012, and the victim is a person who worked as the general manager of the said commercial building.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant used the cost of maintaining the building by setting the cost of maintaining the building at KRW 20% and using the difference in the cost of maintaining the building at KRW 850,000,000 in a way of using the difference. Despite the fact that ○○○○, who was the full-time member of the management body of the building in question, did not personally use part of the cost of maintaining the building, he was removed from the title of “○○○○○○ Construction Site” to “public announcement of the owner of the building in question,” and confirmed the use of the building in rain after driving away from the building in the building in 2012. As a result, the Defendant prepared a false announcement to the effect that 20,000 won of the cost of maintaining the building, which was set at KRW 10,000,000,000,000 for the elevator construction in KRW 150,000,000,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement on the witness ○○○, Kim ○, and Lee ○○

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the substitution of the accused);

1. Public notice for the owner of a building in the new ○○ Construction line;

1. Notification of reasons for non-prosecution;

[Defendant and defense counsel asserted that the illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act because the victim believed that he/she was able to return a certain amount of money in the form of determining the excessive amount of disinfection expenses and remuneration, and there were reasonable grounds to believe such that he/she would return it.

For the justifiable reason that the defendant believed that the victim would take money, it is based on the situation that the defendant reduces the management expenses or reduces the management expenses when the defendant performs the general duties when comparing the talks of cleaning staff and the victim's general duties in Mari-gu (which seems to have died at the beginning of 2014).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., ① an elevator repair business operator (○○○○○) testified that the defendant talks with the repair business operator to the defendant, and the head of the management office Kim○ has testified to the effect that the defendant merely stated that there was a light survey to ask the above employee for an unreasonable reason compared to other locations, and that part of the repair cost is delivered to the victim (this purpose is to be known through the recording with Kim○, submitted by the defendant). (2) The head of the management office testified that there was no core reason to deliver part of the repair cost to the victim after receiving excessive repair cost, ③ it is difficult to view that the defendant testified that there was no objective reason to believe that there was no material difference between the defendant and the competitor, and ④ it is difficult to view that there was no objective reason to believe that there was no material reason to believe that there was no material difference between the defendant and the defendant, such as the defendant's oral statement, and ④ it is difficult to say that there was no reason to inform the victim of the repair cost.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 307(2) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.