The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The fraud related to maintenance, such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the fraud related to U maintenance. (1) The crime was led by B, and the Defendant, as a representative in the name of QP, mainly engaged in external activities related to the contract with Q, did not instruct Q to prepare a false work site with Q, C or AF.

In addition, there is no intention to commit the crime and to jointly process the accused by fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the statements of C and W without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) On September 4, 2013, in the case of a self-maintenance contract, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration entered into a contract with the knowledge that it is impossible to accept the labor demand as agreed within the term of the contract, and even though it knows that the labor demand by the company in charge of the dispute settlement agreement was false, it recognized that the labor demand by the company in charge of the dispute settlement

Therefore, there is no relation between the defendant's deception and the disposition of the office of defense business.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) The LAP had employed more than 20 daily workers to carry out the maintenance contract, including S, on September 4, 2013, and participated in the maintenance work. As such, insofar as the cost paid by employing daily workers can be claimed as “the cost of outsourcing services” rather than the “labor cost” item, the said cost is not the amount of actual profit of the LAP, and should not be excluded from the amount of fraud.

In addition, on July 18, 2013 and September 18, 2014, the AF, who is an employee of the PP, performed the maintenance work together with AD AE, and the LAP does not subcontract the maintenance work to AE, and therefore, the LAP is entitled to claim a subcontract cost paid to AE in the form of "the cost of external share price" to the KAE.