The F Co., Ltd., Ltd. and Defendant B, in substance, entered into a management service contract rather than a security contract.

Defendant

B Since the building management body saw the machinery room essential for the management of the building and cross-sections, it entered the machinery room as part of the building management, and it did not perform the security service.

It is not possible to establish a crime of violation of the Security Industry Act against Defendants.

Defendant

A as the representative of C, a superstore manager, entered into the management service contract as above, and did not instruct or invite specific acts.

Judgment

The Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail with a detailed statement of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion under the title “reasons for recognition of a crime” in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.