beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-finding around December 7, 2012, D had not yet completed the structural construction, and there was no reason to prepare an industrial report on the construction cost. In fact, the construction cost settlement statement was prepared around February 2013, on which the structural construction was completed, but was written around February 7, 2013, only the date of preparation at D’s request was stated as “ December 7, 2012.”
In addition, the Defendant was expected to obtain a loan of KRW 8 billion from Q Q Co., Ltd. upon completion of the instant pension construction work. However, since D demanded that the debt amount of KRW 4 billion out of the loan be prepared in accordance with the debt list in order to secure it as one’s own construction cost, it was only prepared a debt list according to its demand, and thus, it was well aware that there was a claim that is not in the list of debt delivery obligations.
Therefore, the defendant's testimony stated in the facts charged is not false.
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) it is difficult to find the reasons why the date on which the written statement for the settlement of construction cost of D is to be drawn retroactively; and (ii) it is difficult to obtain the Defendant from December 31, 2012 that the date on which the Defendant was to pay the construction cost of KRW 1,150,000,000, out of the construction cost to be paid; and (iii) it is difficult to obtain the Defendant from J to pay the construction cost retroactively; and (iv) it is written on the premise that the Defendant borrowed money from J and paid it to D; and (v) the Defendant prepared each written payment from J around December 10, 2012 to borrow KRW 220,000,000 from J but did not have been borrowed at that time; and (v) if the said written statement was drawn up on February 2, 2013 as the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not have any reasons to enter the above details in D around the period of settlement.