beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A prepared a provisional settlement for claiming construction cost to the subcontractor company with the victim company and did not definitely claim construction cost. Thus, Defendant A did not intend to preserve the unpaid construction cost in order to maintain the continuous transaction relationship between the victim company and the subcontractor. Thus, Defendant A did not intend to commit a breach of trust.
B. The prosecutor Defendant B participated in the crime of Defendant A.
2. Determination
A. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A prepared a statement of accounts, “100,000 to five million won increase in the construction cost of six subcontractors,” and sent the same by e-mail to H representative, who is the person in charge of the victim company, on November 5, 2012. As such, Defendant A started to commit the crime of occupational breach of trust.
(2) Even if the victim company had not paid the subcontract price to the subcontractor company, it is not reasonable to deem that the increase in the construction price of another construction without the victim company's permission to compensate for it. Thus, the defendant A was aware that there was a risk of damage to the victim company and that there was a violation of his/her duties.
(3) Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.
B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion, the court below stated the reasons in detail, and found the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants in the police preparation to be denied in the court, it is not admissible, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to commit a crime as stated in the facts charged, and found Defendant B not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The judgment of the court below is just in comparison with the record