beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the course of concluding a subcontract on the appurtenant work before Pyeongtaek-gun military base transfer between C, the defendant paid KRW 50 million to C as a security deposit, but thereafter, this case occurred when the defendant transferred the above subcontract to the injured party. In the process, the defendant was only used to C, and there was no fact that the defendant conspired with C, and the money that the defendant received from the injured party was remitted to C, and there was no benefit from the instant case. The court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant conspired with C, such as the facts charged, acquired money from victim D as a subcontract price for a construction project, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
① The victim D, as stated in the attached Table 1 and 2 of the crime sight table No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, ordered the victim to work appurtenant to the military base relocation in F, which is run by the former Director of the National Intelligence Service, C, which is the head of the former Director of the National Intelligence Service, to work for subcontracting the work on the work on the relocation of the military base when he paid KRW 1 billion in advance, is not C, but the defendant, and the person who stated that the expenses for the development of Ansan in Ansan, such as the above crime sight table No. 3 through No. 6, is also the defendant. The I's statement at the time is consistent with the above statement, and the victim made a false statement unfavorable to the defendant only when he filed a complaint with C.