beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On January 7, 2009, as to the fraud described in paragraph (1) of the judgment below, the business owner B was at the time of the gambling work, and the defendant was in the position of the worker who performed the worship work according to B’s instruction.
B. M listed in the business text of the contract as to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified document as stated in paragraph (4) of the judgment below is a person who is not aware of the defendant.
The amount of construction is also different from that of the defendant.
In light of these circumstances, it is not possible for the defendant to prepare the above contract.
2. Determination
A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the fraud as stipulated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment below, the defendant was an employer or a joint employer with B at the time of the gambling work on January 7, 2009.
Since it is judged that the defendant is a worker, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above-mentioned document as stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment below, the defendant used M as "M" in the column of "business owner" of the contract stating that "M shall delegate the interior work of a place of business located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan N to A with KRW 12 million" as stated in the judgment of the court below, and forged a contract under the name of M with a seal affixed thereto, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the above forged contract was used by submitting it to the Seoul Vice Governor of the Labor Welfare Corporation and the Seoul Vice Governor of the Labor Welfare Corporation. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake in the facts
B. In full view of the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the Defendant’s judgment on sentencing and all other factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and criminal experience, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.