The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A and C), and Defendant B and C knew that the full-scale spreading of powders was performed in the construction site of the instant construction site, but they falsely prepared a survey report as follows: (a) the above Defendants did not recognize that Q would claim construction cost as if Q would have been performing construction work by the Non-vibration A and A method when claiming for payment for the long-term progress payment. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In so doing, the lower court acquitted the above Defendants of the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (c) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (d) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the above Defendants (Defendant A and D: KRW 7 million, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for March, 1 year suspension, and fine of KRW 3 million).

In addition, the lower court omitted the Defendant D’s additional collection declaration.

B. Defendant A’s mistake at the construction site of this case was unaware of the fact that Q was performing construction work by a general blasting method, not by the non-vibration rock clibing method, and was merely aware of the fact that there was a removal of powders permissible by practice in some sections, such as the sections difficult to excavate by the non-vibration rock clibing method, but there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the facts charged against the Defendant, even though the facts charged against the Defendant were found guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. However, even if the facts charged against the Defendant were found as guilty, it was conducted repeatedly with the same victim under a single and continuous criminal intent, and the method of committing the crime was the same, and the payment for completed portion was requested every month, and thus, the crime was divided. Thus, even though it constitutes