beta
Text
The defendant is innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who became a person who enters the East Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Sayang Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Sayang Engineering Co., Ltd.”) located in Jinyang-dong 358-16, Namyang-dong, and works as the leader of the CF and is working as the head of the CF, who is a major trader, requests a public institution to conduct testing and analysis and submits a test report received from a public institution to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration.
Around March 2006, the defendant had a copy of the "C1100" out of the test report (10-2006-053) and the test report (10-2006-08000) under the name of the Administrator of the Small and Medium Business Administration in the Dongyang Engineering Office of Gyeongnam-gu and had a copy of the "C1100" among the test report (10-2006-080).
On May 28, 2010, the defendant submitted two copies of the results of the alteration to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration after undergoing a quality inspection by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration in relation to the operation mark confusion to be supplied to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration.
Accordingly, the defendant exercised the altered private documents en bloc, and interfered with the quality inspection affairs of the Defense Acquisition Program Administration by fraudulent means.
B. On July 15, 2010, the Defendant submitted the aforementioned modified test report at the above company office to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration and received KRW 9,700,775 in return for the delivery of the latter mix to the victim.
Accordingly, the defendant, by deceiving the victim, acquired the property of the victim.
2. Determination:
A. (1) Determination as to the uttering of a private document is based on the following facts: (a) The crime of altering a private document under the basic law is established when a person without authority has a risk of undermining public trust by cutting a new probative value by altering the content of the document under another’s name to the extent that the identity is not undermined (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14587, Sept. 29, 201).2) The determination as to the instant case.