beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the defendants B, the part of the defendant is reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of 15,000,000 won.
Defendant
B above.
Reasons
1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal
A. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the conspiracy relation, fraud and occupational embezzlement as follows.
1) In relation to defraudation related to four official duties, the Defendant approved the fact that the employee who did not actually work in the written labor expense claim prepared by Defendant B was aware of the fact that the labor expense was additionally claimed in a manner that the number of working days was distorted. However, at the construction site, there was a so-called official duty processing practice that treats the minor industrial accident without industrial accident treatment, and the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”).
A) A well-known fact. The Defendant B’s statement that he received as labor cost was paid directly to the accident worker and did not belong to the Defendant. In relation to this part, the victim company’s comprehensive implied acceptance or presumption consent in relation to this part cannot be deemed to have the intent to defraudation by the Defendant. Even if there was deception by the Defendant and mistake in the victim company, if the Defendants filed a claim against the victim company for the medical expenses or agreement amount of the victim company for the handling of official duties, the victim company was paid, and there was no causation between the Defendant’s deception, mistake, and the disposal act of the victim company, and there was no causation between the Defendant’s act of deception and the disposal act of the victim company. 2) The Defendant’s statement that he made a false claim for the payment of labor cost under the Defendant’s direction with respect to the fraud of the part other than the disposal of the 4th official duties. The Defendant did not have credibility
3 In relation to the occupation of occupational embezzlement, the Defendant is the chief secretary at the construction site.