업무상배임등
The judgment below
All convictions shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
Defendant
A above.
1. Since the summary of the grounds for appeal is confirmed as it is, among the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, that the prosecutor did not appeal, the fraud of personnel expenses in the name of R and that of aiding and abetting fraud, the above part shall be excluded from the subject matter
A. Defendants 1 and 2-A of the facts stated in the judgment below (defendants 1 and 2-1 of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below) are deemed to have received the personnel expenses of Defendant C within the scope of the authority of Defendant A, the head of the site site, in the name of I, and although there was no act of deception or aiding and abetting against the F, the judgment below convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension
2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts.
2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the employee of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) from August 2013 to May 2014, 2014, who worked as the site leader of civil engineering works and structures among G Corporation contracted from F to F (hereinafter “the instant construction site”), and Defendant C served as the head of the work team supervising the management of daily workers at the instant construction site from February 2014 to August 2014.
1) Defendant C’s fraud at the construction site of this case did not confirm the current status of human resources invested by F in the instant case, and Defendant C used the circumstance that F would be paid personnel expenses according to the content claimed by the Director of the On-Site and did not actually work for the employees.