beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the convictions of Defendant A and B and the acquittals of Defendant A and B, the AF Corporation advertising costs are charged.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor asserts that the part not guilty of the lower judgment was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
1) According to the evidence list No. 55 of the case No. 2014 high group3422, Defendant A and B-2010 I media advertising service charges of KRW 65 million, Defendant E (hereinafter “victim”) received orders from J (hereinafter “J”) as to the joint fraud, according to the fact that Defendant A and B-2010 I media advertising service charges of KRW 65 million, Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) entered the ED’s entire certificate (Evidence No. 55 of the evidence list of 2014 high group3422 case), the “AM of a stock company,” as stated in this part of the facts charged, is a clerical error of “ED,” and
(ED (hereinafter “ED”) subcontracted 165 million won (including value-added tax) for the service price of KRW 2010,000,000 to the Defendant Company A (hereinafter “AO”) actually performed the service price of KRW 100,000,000. Nevertheless, Defendant A and the Defendant B, who had worked for ED at the time, conspired with the Defendant Company B, deceiving the victim company as if the ED were engaged in the above media advertising service price of KRW 165,00,000 (including value-added tax). In view of the fact that the ED’s deception and the above service price of KRW 65,00,000 (including value-added tax) by evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, this part of the facts charged should be found guilty of fraud.
Even if so, Defendant B, an employee of the victim company, made excessive payments for the above media advertising services in collusion with Defendant A, thereby causing damage to the victim company. Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be recognized as a crime of occupational breach of trust.
B. The prosecutor submitted a prosecutor with respect to the joint fraud of KRW 22 million in the name of the AF advertising cost in Defendant A and B’s name.