The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the statement, etc. at the investigation agency of C in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant assisted the act of occupational breach of trust where C had the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”) pay unfair special benefits to G.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.
A. As to the facts charged in this case, the court below asked H, who is an employee of the victimized company, to provide the defendant with the testimony of this case, "G, as an external third village, was in charge of the equipment of the victimized company's factory, but if the victimized company added up the number of days of G's peculiar work, F prepared a statement of the work expense and claimed for the damaged company, and paid the damaged company's special work expense to F, ② for the first one year, while G was engaged in the equipment work and special work, but C did not perform its work thereafter. However, in order to ensure that G continued to receive special work expense, the court below requested H, who is an employee of the victimized company, to provide that "if the defendant asked the unique work days of G, he did not know the unique work days of G, and otherwise C did not inform the defendant of the special work days of G, and it did not inform the defendant of the special work of the fact that C did not have been in charge of the defendant's management of the work of G in this case."
The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the statement was stated.
B. The above judgment of the court below is made.