Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s mistake of fact is not an independent crime even if the Defendant B committed a crime related to cleaning services conducted by the II Corporation in accordance with the direction of Defendant A.

Defendant

It is not easy to receive KRW 10 million as bonus from A.

2) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence to two years of imprisonment, one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the prosecutor’s (Defendant A), Defendant B’s statement, etc., it is recognized that Defendant A instructed the use of a forged service performance certificate in the name of L corporation and the U.S. service contract with respect to the cleaning service conducted by I Corporation.

2) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for a term of four years, one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is deemed to be too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that Defendant A conspiredd to commit an act of forging a certificate of performance of service performance or service contract of the United States.

It was judged that there was a lack of recognition.

Specific reasons for judgment are as follows.

① When Defendant B was selected as a qualified business entity in the I Corporation’s cleaning service tender, Defendant B explained to the effect that Defendant A may receive cleaning services upon submitting a certificate of performance records indicating the performance records of the service performance, which reflects the total floor area as presented by the above Corporation, among the services performed by K, since the service amount to Defendant A is less than one billion won.

Defendant

A has received a certificate of performance performance of L in the name of “other than services” as the content of the service performed by K after hearing it.

② Defendant B asserts that there was no benefit from the receipt of two services.

However, on April 30, 2015, K paid consulting costs of KRW 15 million (excluding value added taxes) for the development of cleaning service brand to Defendant B, Defendant B, and received KRW 5 million from among them.