The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. After recognizing the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendant, a general partner of M, registered N, etc. who did not work as an employee of M’s street cleaners, filed a claim for agency fee including N, etc.’s personnel expenses, and obtained and acquired N, etc. personnel expenses for N, etc. from the victim’s smuggling, by taking into account the volume of waste discharged, collecting quantity, collecting distance, etc., and comprehensively taking into account the status of equipment and the number of street cleaners employed, etc., and paid agency fee calculated according to the number, etc. of street cleanerss who actually worked every month.

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept. A.

First, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the method of determining the contract amount from 2005 to 2008 during the crime period of the instant facts charged and the method of determining the contract amount after 2009 can be known to the different.

In other words, by 2008, prior to the determination of the annual contract price for garbage collection agency, services were provided to the external service agency to determine the annual contract price by negotiating with the waste collection agency based on the results, and the amount corresponding to 1/12 per month was entered into the contract for the relevant year and operated by the method of paying a fixed amount each month, and it was not a structure of settling agency fees according to how the waste collection agency actually puts the number of persons and equipment.

On the other hand, since 2009, it is once annually.