beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 12 million won.
The amount equivalent to the above fine shall be paid provisionally.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to workers under the Nos. 1 through 11 of the crime inundation table (1) of the lower court’s judgment and the crime inundation table (2) Nos. 1, 2, 18, 40 through 44, 47, 50, 53, 63, 71, 83, 86, 87, 129, 130, and 132 of the crime inundation table of the lower court’s judgment, the illegal dispatch is not proven even for the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, including related civil judgments.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding guilty as to the above part of the facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 15 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. We examine the part of the lower judgment for which workers were dispatched from E as to each worker of the sequence 1 to 11 of the crime sight table (1) in the part of the lower judgment.
According to the records of "E (E)" (Evidence No. 21), "E (State)" and "E (State No. 10 of the records of each case, and documents attached to the statements made by special judicial police officers on September 30, 2014) in the list of "E (E)" and "E (State No. 10 of the records of each case, and documents attached to the statements made by the Special Judicial Police Officers on September 30, 2014), the Z (crime No. 1) net time 2) of the defendant's M is recognized as the defendant's collection, blasting, loading, transportation, etc. of the above M from the defendant's M, a new mine warden (1) who exercises overall control over the defendant's collection, blasting, loading, transportation, etc. of the above M, AB (13 of the list of crimes), AB (No. 10 of the list of crimes, AE (No. 10 of the list of crimes), AM (No. 14G) and AB of the P (No 14G).
In addition, each of the above workers' duties is acknowledged by the entry of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 Gohap 516521 (Evidence No. 18), and all of the duties of the defendant contracted to E (see the above Decision No. 11). Thus, the defendant is the defendant.