beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant would pay the performance-based bonus in the year 2016 on the date and time indicated in the facts charged according to the formula of performance-based payment rates determined before the Defendant was elected as the chairman of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Committee, and there was no room for the Defendant to agree with the company. The determination of the performance-based payment rate formula was made only for the purport that the victim would have agreed with the previous company without
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① the horses of the Defendant at the time of committing the instant facts charged.
F consistently made a statement from an investigative agency to the court that “The Defendant, who had talked on the performance-based bonus in 2016, stated that the performance-based bonus in 2016 was an agreement between the former president and the victim, and thus, did not make it possible to pay.” This fact was confirmed to the victim. In addition to F, F, P and Q (U) took place.
I stated and presented a recording file.
The investigation records 2 pages 92 et al. included the above statements
In the police investigation stage, the defendant made a statement to the effect that "the piece rates in the year 2016 are less than 40% of ordinary wages compared to the preceding year, and these piece rates are not paid in accordance with the agreement between the victim and the company, but are made by the defendant in negotiations with the company," and stated to the effect that "the victim is not aware of whether the payment of performance rates was made by the victim in consultation with the company, or that the victim is deemed to have consulted with the company because they were existing (the investigation record 2: 146 pages)," and the defendant stated to the effect that "the victim is thought to have consulted with the company," at the police investigation stage, the defendant made a statement to the effect that "the piece rates in the year 2016 are less than 40% of ordinary wages compared to the previous year." (the investigation record 146 pages).