특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
[Defendant A] The guilty part of the lower judgment against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A Fine of 10,000,000 won.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A1’s interference with bidding of this case, H, who is an employee in charge of G (hereinafter “G”), did not receive the internal documents and bid information of J prior to the public notice of bidding, and the change of the type of products between G and J was made on October 15, 2009, after the selection of the priority bidder, and the change of bid price was decided by Defendant B alone. As such, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant A merely obtained a change of bid price after the selection of the priority bidder and participated or participated in the act of interference with bidding.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes (Misappropriation)”).
As to the crime of occupational breach of trust, this part of the facts charged was conducted according to the management judgment of the defendant, and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although there was no intention or intent of unlawful acquisition. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant A (three years of imprisonment with labor) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s punishment ( fine of KRW 7,00,000) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B is too unreasonable.
C. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Defendant A and C’s occupational embezzlement), Defendant C, the largest shareholder of G, is a corporation AA (hereinafter “AA”) that is a representative director.
Since Defendant A and C merely serve as a compliance with no entity, Defendant A and C’s corporate funds as the service fee for heating board.