문서은닉
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. The Defendant is a person who runs the sales business of precious metals with the trade name D in C commercial buildings.
around 11:00 on November 25, 2016, the Defendant collected and concealed approximately 10 copies of a notice (A4 paper) from the Defendant, without permission, on the ground that the Defendant did not support himself/herself on the 1st floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Commercial Building, on the grounds that he/she did not support, the Defendant: (a) collected and concealed approximately 10 copies of a notice (hereinafter referred to as “F-name notice”) to maintain a large-scale store and prepare for the management performance under the name of the victim E representative director E.
B. The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant by comprehensively taking account of the witness FF, G’s statutory statement, the prosecutor’s and police’s statement protocol, H’s written statement, accusation statement, large store manager’s confirmation document, and a certified copy of the corporate registry.
2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) was the document collected by the defendant at the time, not the F-name notice, but the M, the management group leader of the above commercial building.
As such, the reason why the Defendant’s collection of notice in the name of M was the head of the management group dismissed at the time of M, and accordingly, the distribution of notice in the name of M was an illegal act without authority, and the Defendant, who was the general director of the above shopping mall, has the authority to collect
Since it is because the defendant believed that there was no intention to conceal a document, and the defendant was delegated the authority to collect and destroy a notice distributed to each of the above commercial merchants, it is also applicable to the case where the victim's consent or presumed consent is obtained for the concealment of a document.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts as to what the documents collected by the defendant, or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the intentional concealment of documents and the victim's consent or constructive acceptance.
3...