beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant 2015 [Attachment 761] [Attachment 2015] [Attachment 3805 [Attachment 3805] [Attachment 1] and 2-A].
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
B. (1) Of the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment, Defendant 2-C, Ra, Ma, and Ba of the 2015 Highest 3805 Highest 2-C, 2015 Highest 3805.
The sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the examination of ex officio and the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
A. In the trial of the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor filed an application for the amendment of the indictment with the contents of the indictment No. 2-C through (f) of the indictment No. 3805 [3] as stated below, and this Court permitted the application and thereby the subject of the judgment on this part is changed. As such, each of the changed crimes and the remaining crimes as stated in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be treated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and each of the crimes (as stated in the judgment of the court below, 1 year imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes under subparagraph 2-A, No. 3805 [3], No. 3805 [3], No. 2015 [3], No. 3805 [3], and (2) of the changed crimes as mentioned above, and all of the judgment below shall be maintained.
[Revised Indictment - Section 2-C through B of the facts charged under [Attachment 2015 Highest 3805]
2. Crimes related to the removal work subcontracted deposit;
C. On August 8, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “the Defendant was awarded a contract for the removal of a factory from the Gyeonggi-si L or M to the fact that it would have been awarded a contract amounting to KRW 20,500,000,000 from the Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government,” and that “The Defendant would have changed the subcontract deposit amount to KRW 4,50,000,000,000” to the Defendant’s corporate bank account around August 8, 2011, and received KRW 1,00,000 from the damaged person to the Defendant’s corporate bank account in both weeks, and cash at the AD’s construction site office in both weeks.