beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.10.17 2012노741

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake 1) Defendant A is the Fvalescent Hospital (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

(G) and corporation G (hereinafter referred to as “G”)

(1) The cafeteria Operating Agreement entered into between the parties (hereinafter referred to as “instant cafeteria Operating Agreement”).

(2) Defendant B did not directly engage in the operation of the instant hospital as an owner of the land of the instant hospital, building type ownership in the instant building, and did not engage in the conclusion of the contract at the request of Defendant A, and the Defendant did not conclude the above restaurant operation contract under the direction of the Defendant.

B. Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the lower court’s sentencing (one million won per fine) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, in particular, the following facts can be acknowledged according to each description of the suspect examination protocol in relation to the Defendants prepared by the prosecutor, I’s statement by the witness of the first instance court, and M, H, J, and K’s statement prepared by the prosecutor:

① Defendant A was the president of the instant hospital, and the head of the administrative office, etc., in addition to the hospital’s medical practice, directly received business reports from the head of the administrative office, etc.

② Defendant A entrusted Defendant B with the authority to conclude a contract for the operation of a restaurant with G, with his seal affixed to Defendant B. Defendant B, the general secretary of G, should directly operate the cafeteria at the hospital on the document, and should appear to have directly employed a dietitian, cook, etc. in order for the hospital to receive the additional charge directly. As such, in addition to the restaurant operation contract, Defendant B should have directly operated the cafeteria at the hospital on the document.