Following the payment of delegation costs, C’s statement that there was a lack of evaluation of business relevance at H hospital following the Defendant’s end in around 2012 is difficult to believe as the first statement after the Defendant received all the said money from the Defendant, and there is no record of such medical treatment or record that the Defendant filed an industrial accident application in around 2012.

The Defendant’s filing of an industrial accident claim against C around March 2014 is nothing more than filing a criminal complaint against C in a form of fraud, so it would be more likely that the Defendant would be subject to criminal complaint against C, and it would be more formally formally requested. 2. In full view of each circumstance recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that there is no reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s deception of the victim or the Defendant’s criminal intent to obtain fraud

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

① At least the Defendant appears to have continuously operated the G Labor Law Office until November 2014, and there is no discovery that the Defendant was economically unlikely on March 2012, 201, for which the commission cost was paid by C.

In other words, at the time of receiving delegation expenses, there was a motive to obtain 3.3 million won of delegation expenses from C by doping the delegation of industrial accident management duties.

does not appear.

In addition, it is also true that the defendant acquired the delegation cost against the other clients of the above office.