beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant of mistake of facts did not say that the first time in the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work for the work of the church (hereinafter “the work of this case”) from E, and even if the defendant again demanded a quotation of not more than KRW 10 million even though he stated such remarks from E even though he did not memory the specific estimate amount, the defendant merely stated that he would again submit a quotation of not more than KRW 10 million,000,000 in the sense that he would not
Therefore, even though the defendant had no intention to commit a crime of breach of trust, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examined the argument of mistake of facts. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, namely, ① from the police to the court of the court below, the first defendant stated that he was 8,70,000 won for the construction work of this case. The defendant's statement was made with the statement from another company to the effect that "as there has been an estimate of 10,000,000 won or less from another company, it shall be less than KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was delivered to the defendant in early April 2010, 200. ② The motive for preparing the written conscience declaration of conscience of this content was the purpose of receiving 4,40,000,000 won for the construction work from the victim church, it is difficult to conclude that the above statement was false solely on the ground that the motive for E to receive 1,000,000 won for the construction work of this case.