beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely informed the owner F of the plan to open access roads only in relation to the facts charged of the instant case, and is fine even if the owner F of the land has diverted the mountainous district without permission
There is no order to establish access roads at the site or at the site.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the Defendant consistently admitted the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below, and reversed it in the first instance trial. Not only the suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the investigative agency, but also the reflective and written application prepared by the Defendant was directly prepared and submitted by the investigation agency, and the Defendant was indicated to the effect that the Defendant was in charge of the duty of design modification, and that the access road was opened on the ground that the site of the access road was lawful by obtaining permission for the occupation and use of the road, rather than a large change in the process of design modification, and that it was stated to the effect that the access road was opened with permission for the occupation and use of the road. ② The F consistently received the Defendant’s remuneration
However, it is recognized that F has paid 500,000 won to H in advance of remuneration) design change work is fine even if an access road is opened.
Ha stated to the effect that access roads were to be established, and H also is fine even if the Defendant opened access roads.
On the other hand, F stated to the effect that the access road was established. ③ The Defendant was engaged in the civil engineering and design business for 15 years, and was in charge of the agency business for the permission of design change. As long as F was responsible for the design change work for the Defendant on the ground that the cost incurred a large amount of expenses incurred in obtaining the permission of design and construction of the road, F was in a position that is bound to depend on the judgment of the Defendant, ④ F and H were in the construction site of the access road.