beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant, as the defendant paid the "worker's Day" allowance to the street cleaners and parking management personnel of the commercial building of this case, was found to have acquired 142,50 won by claiming the victims by including each of the above allowances in the notice of management expenses, etc.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence submitted by the lower court’s determination, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) street cleaners V retired around July 2013; and (b) the Defendant did not pay the day’s allowance to the parking management personnel W.
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant on May 1, 2014 (the Workers' Day) performed the duty of cleaning and parking management of the commercial building of this case, WW, a parking management personnel, commenced work on April 29, 2014 and was given a substitute leave for those who did not receive an employee's daily allowance, and the defendant prepared a work log in May 2014 and recorded the fact that he/she had performed the duty of cleaning and parking management on the Workers' Day.
According to the above facts, as long as the defendant performed cleaning work on May 1, 2014 on his own, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had an intention to acquire allowances by means of such fact alone even if the cleaning condition of the above commercial building was poor, such as the statement of the fact confirmation (Evidence No. 554 through 567 of the evidence record) of some victims. The above confirmation document is prepared around March 3, 2015 on which the victims filed a complaint. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant did not perform cleaning of the above building on May 1, 2014, which is up to one year prior to the above confirmation document alone.
In addition, the above building does not employ street cleaners from July 2013, and it appears that the defendant performed cleaning duty, and the victims are prior to the complaint of this case.