특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
1. Of the judgment below, the part on the violation of the Subsidy Management Act against Defendant B, C, and D is respectively included.
The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the above defendants, who are public officials belonging to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, have made false documents using the budget-based public officials who know that the contents of "the revenue budget and the specifications of the business" are false. Thus, the above defendants are charged with preparing a false public document in the form of indirect principal offender since the above defendants are charged with preparing a false public document.
Since the amount to be paid to M is three billion won as the completion money of the “AB ecological river creation project”, the above Defendants demanded KRW 995 million from the time when the budget request was prepared to convert the project cost for the prevention of river disaster to the cost for the ecological river construction project, with the intent to divert the project cost for the prevention of river disaster, with the knowledge of the above circumstances. The “budget request” prepared by the above Defendants constitutes the draft of the “budget budget for revenue and expenditure and the specification of the project” and deemed the said Defendants as the actual authority to prepare the “budget budget and the statement of revenue and expenditure” and the “statement of the project” can be deemed as the actual authority to prepare the false official document and to recognize the intent of the said event.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B, C, and D of the facts charged in the instant case on the preparation of false official documents due to the submission of the budget and the preparation of the business budget and on the exercise of false official documents among the facts charged in the instant case, is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion
Defendant
B, C, and D’s violation of the Subsidy Management Act ① “AB and 12 river disaster prevention projects” practically performed by the aforementioned Defendants, who are public officials belonging to “Z construction and construction”, who belong to the competent department of the project. As such, the said Defendants constitute “offenders” under Articles 42 subparag. 1 and 23 of the Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 12161, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “the Subsidy Act”).
(2) "AB" in 2013.