Housing Suwon-si, Housing Suwon-si

United States of America in the case of the place of registration

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,00,00.

Defendant who converted 50,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

(a) A prosecutor;

(1) misunderstanding of legal principles

Since the completion inspection protocol of this case is an official document with knowledge of false facts, the defendant's act of signing in the public perusal column of the completion inspection protocol of this case and keeping it in the office with the approval of the superior constitutes the crime of preparing false official documents and the crime of uttering of false official documents, the judgment below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of preparing false

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below (the amount of a fine of four million won) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) ex officio determination:

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to add "Article 34 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 34 (1) of the Criminal Act" among the facts charged in the case of this case as to the preparation of false public documents and the uttering of false public documents, and since this court permitted this, the part of the judgment of the court below which was no longer maintained in this regard.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is still subject to the judgment of the source of law, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts of prosecution on the ground that it is difficult to evaluate the respondent as the originator of the instant completion inspection report solely on the ground that the Defendant signed the inspection and approval on the inspection report attached to the inspection report attached with the instant completion inspection report, since A et al., who prepared the instant completion inspection report, only is a private person who is not a public official, and the preparing entity of the instant completion inspection report is a private person.

(2) Judgment of this Court

According to Article 17(1) and (2) of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party, and Article 67 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the head of a local government or a contracting officer shall directly inspect the whole or part of a contract, or delegate it to a public official, etc. under his/her control when the performance of the contract is completed by the contracting officer. In cases of a contract for construction works subject to responsible supervision or a contract for specialized knowledge or technology, a specialized institution may be delegated to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, the head of a local government or a contracting officer shall prepare an inspection report, and if the head of a local government or a person in charge of a contract entrusts a specialized institution with the inspection, he/she shall be notified in writing of the result and confirm it. In light of the above provision, a public prosecutor with regard to the completion of the contract to which a local government is a party, who has the authority of the head of a local government or contracting officer, shall delegate it to a specialized institution, and in this case, the head of a local government is performing his/her duties by obtaining inspection results from a specialized institution through a document and approval.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, with regard to the development project of the Franchisive Plant Resources, the Korea Agricultural Technology Center established the contract for the construction project in this case with B, etc. through Incheon Local Government Procurement Service (hereinafter "the construction contract in this case"), and entered into a technical service contract with C for full-time responsible supervision (hereinafter "the supervision contract in this case") with C, and took charge of the affairs related to the above execution of the contract in this case. Upon receipt from B, the Korea Agricultural Technology Center entrusted the completion inspection to C pursuant to the supervision contract in this case. However, as a responsible supervisor of C and the public official belonging to the Agricultural Technology Center, the public official in charge of the completion inspection was present at the completion inspection, and the public prosecutor and the public official in charge of the Agricultural Technology Center did not know that the completion inspection in this case was not yet completed, and the public prosecutor and the public prosecutor and the public official in charge of the final inspection in this case prepared the report of the completion inspection in the column of the report of the completion inspection in this case and prepared the report of the completion inspection in this case.

Examining such factual basis in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the relevant provisions of the above Act, the Agricultural Technology Center as a contracting officer for the instant contract to which the said Act applies.

In order to secure B, C entered into the instant supervision agreement with a specialized institution and, accordingly, delegated C with the first completion inspection, which is the duties under its jurisdiction, and accordingly C took the result of the completion inspection prepared and reported by C as the instant completion inspection report by the competent authority, through the approval of the warden, who is the competent authority (it shall be deemed that the instant completion inspection report, which includes the result of the completion inspection as the attached document, is a document attached to the instant inspection report, although the approval was made in the form of the instant inspection report by the competent authority). Ultimately, the instant completion inspection report approved by C, which is a document prepared by the director of the Agricultural Technology Center within his authority, constitutes an official document.

In addition, in the case of the instant completion inspection protocol, which is an official document with the above approval, only the director of the Agricultural Technology Center having authority to prepare the documents on his duties, and the defendant who is a public official in the position to assist the preparation of false public documents, is not the subject of the crime of preparation of false public documents. The defendant, in collusion with A, approved that he would make the instant completion inspection protocol in collusion with A be prepared and shipped out, and confirmed its authenticity as a person who has participated in the completion inspection, and then submitted it to the warden who is unaware of such false facts to the director through the director of the division, thereby completing the instant completion inspection protocol in a false public document and keeping the said completion inspection report in a false document. Thus, the defendant is liable for the crime as an indirect principal of the crime of preparation of false public documents and the crime of preparation of false public documents.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to official document preparation crime of false official document, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing and the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of this court's criminal facts and their evidence is as follows: "The defendant in the 8th sentence" added the following contents to 7th sentence of the criminal facts of the judgment below; "The defendant in the 8th sentence is " Eul"; "1. The defendant's interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's office against the defendant and A" in the summary column of the evidence; and "1....... the defendant added "a copy of the report of completion of the first inspection of completion of self plant landscape construction works (including the attachment of the attachment)" to 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

:

1. The Defendant and the responsible supervisor A was aware of the fact that he did not supply trees related to the primary construction until December 10, 207, which was the date of the preparation of the first completion inspection report concerning the said self plant plant plant plant construction, as well as that other landscaping construction has not been completed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspired with A on December 10, 207, 100 - At the site office of the construction site of the construction site of the G Geong-si 00 - The name of the construction site of the G Geong-si 00 : The construction site of the Feong-si Posi Posi Posisi Posi Posiwon was completed: The construction site of the Geong-si Posi Posi Posi Posi, and the construction completion on November 30, 207, and the completion inspection (the first minute) was completed on December 10, 2007, and the completion inspection was completed on December 10, 2007 without being completed in accordance with the construction design documents and other agreements, and the Defendant did not know that the completion inspection was completed in the name of the Keong-si Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Posi Po.

As a result, the Defendant prepared a false report on completion inspection, which is an official document prepared or implemented for the purpose of exercising supervision services on behalf of the Defendant in collusion with A, and exercised it.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 27, 34(1), 31(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act. Article 227, 34(1), 31(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

elective) Articles 229, 227, 34(1), 31(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (a false prepared official document)

Enforcement of the Act, the choice of fines), Articles 356 and 355(2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 355(2) of the Act

x)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

In collusion with a responsible supervisor, the Defendant, who is a public official in charge of the works of the GFF, prepares a protocol of completion of construction and exercises the order of completion as soon as the construction has not been completed, and receives government-funded materials that do not meet the Standards and causes damages to the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the damage of KRW 2,415,00,00, and the nature and circumstances of each of the crimes of this case are not easy; on the other hand, the Defendant is in profoundly against his mistake and has served as a public official for more than 30 years, and he has no record of punishment in addition to three times of fine, and all of the sentencing conditions of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, shall be sentenced to the same punishment as the order of the Defendant.

Judges Cho Jae-in

Judges Gangwon-gu