beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (hereinafter “E”), J, and I’s statement, etc. as employees C, D, and E’s employees of E (hereinafter “E”), the actual operator of F, the subcontractor of the instant construction site, and the director of the instant construction site: (a) the Defendant, E, and F entered into a contract; (b) the goods supply cost portion; (c) the Defendant and F entered into a prior consultation with the Defendant on the direct contract between the Defendant and F; and (d) the Defendant directly affixed the goods supply contract in the name of the Defendant and F (hereinafter “instant contract”) or at least signed the contract with the Defendant’s consent.
As such, even though the contract of this case was made under the permission of the defendant, the defendant was dismissed for the purpose of having C and D criminal punishment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination is difficult to understand the fact that D, I’s statement that at the site of the signing of the instant contract was affixed, and D, I’s statement was whatever and consistent with the seal subject, C, and D were consulted with I as to the separation of contract, the Defendant did not consult, the Defendant appears to not have been directly explained about the contract amount, etc., the Defendant was not directly explained about the contract amount, etc., if there was a prior consultation on the separation contract, and the J was waiting at the site of the contract only delivered the K seal, which is the F’s representative director, to E, to the E., and the goods supply portion does not reveal the contents of the contract between E and F. Comprehensively considering the fact that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone does not reveal the contents of the contract between E and E, it was proven that the Defendant reported false facts or there was a criminal intent to report false facts.
It is difficult to see otherwise, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.