방위사업법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) The time when the instant crime was committed is clear to be “when a supply contract is concluded” pursuant to Article 48(1)12 of the Defense Business Act. In light of Article 364 of the Defense Acquisition Program Management Regulations, if there is no difference between the amount and the initial contract amount, only the original contract remains effective due to the fulfillment of the condition for rescission, in the absence of any difference between the amount and the initial contract amount, and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration made a notification of the determination of the contract amount as of November 14, 2012 with the joint Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) of the lower court (hereinafter “A”) around September 29, 2009 on the ground that there was no difference between the settled amount of the supply contract concluded on September 29, 2009 and the amount settled, and thus, the instant crime was already instituted on September 29, 2009 as of September 7, 2005.
Nevertheless, the lower court concluded a cost confirmation agreement between the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and A on November 14, 2012.
The prosecution of this case was instituted prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, considering the time when the crime was terminated as the time when the above revised contract was concluded.
In this case, the court erred by misunderstanding facts, misunderstanding the purpose of the statute of limitations system, and misunderstanding the legal principles on the criminal law system.
2) The Defendant is merely issuing false tax invoices that facilitate the conclusion of a goods supply contract based on false cost data with A’s defense business authority, and thus constitutes an aiding and abetting offender, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that deemed the Defendant as a joint principal offender with A and joint principal offender.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the results of the case search ex officio by this court.