beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. From March 7, 2016 to August 1, 2018, the Defendant is a person who was engaged in the maintenance and repair of electric installations under the control of a public service team of the victim C, a manufacturing company, such as water shoot in the Chungcheongnam-gun B, etc.
The Defendant had been willing to claim false overtime work allowances to the company by arbitrarily modifying and entering his/her commuting hours at will and manipulating overtime work hours.
At around 13:10 on October 4, 2017, the Defendant had access to D using the ID and password, which was previously known and identified by the person in charge of the work management system, at the office of the above victim company, using the ID and password. After inquiring about the result of his/her commuting to and from work, the Defendant had a total of 188 commuting hours from work from work to work on February 25, 2017, as shown in the separate crime list from that time to 14:44 on the same day.
In this respect, the defendant changed the electronic records of C, Co., Ltd. on a certificate of fact for the purpose of making business process smooth.
B. The Defendant interfered with the management of the victim’s commuting to and from work by causing interference with information processing by arbitrarily changing information recorded in the D program at the aforementioned date, time, place, as seen above, and thereby hindering the victim’s work.
2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the defendant had a burden of changing the defendant's commuting time to and from work at the time and place of the charge to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
(1) There is no direct evidence as to the fact that the defendant corrected his attitude records connected to the D program at the time and place of charge.
(2) The defendant was present at the company office on October 4, 2017, and he was present at the company office.