beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment below regarding Defendant A, B, and E shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal
A. Defendant A 1) Inasmuch as the misapprehension of the legal principle as to permission for modification of an indictment, Defendant A (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”) refers to “Special Economic Crimes Act, which is the primary charge of the instant case.” Violation (Fraud) and Violation of Special Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) which is the ancillary charge (hereinafter “Offense of Occupational Breach of Trust”).
The facts are different, and thus, the court below erred in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the amendment of a bill of amendment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it did not constitute an object of the permission for the amendment of a bill of amendment, it did not constitute an object of the permission for the amendment of a bill of amendment. 2) Since February 2009, the court below erred in misapprehending the legal principles as to the amendment of a bill of amendment, and found the defendant guilty of the ancillary facts against the defendant. 2) From February 2, 2009 to February 2, 2009, the construction of the equipment of the V project,
In light of the contractual relationship, given that the Defendant did not have the authority to determine the construction work and the business cost of the instant construction, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have any occupational duties with respect to the Victim GS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GS Construction”), and the construction cost of the instant construction means the method in which T is only managing the construction and, in return, receives a certain percentage of fees, including the head office management fee for the construction cost as determined by T which is the ordering authority.
Since there was an agreement to pay as a result, if the construction price paid by the GS Construction increases, the construction price that the GS Construction receives from T increases, so there was no damage to the GS Construction.
3) The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B (Defendant B) mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principle is an occupational breach of trust.