beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (Definites) recognized the time when the Defendant was measured using a similar gold type, not a gold type used in the production of the instant automobile parts, with professional knowledge of the appraiser, and determined that the Defendant was frequently required work preparation time by recognizing that the production of a small amount of variety was a large quantity of production through 308 trading specifications presented by the Defendant.
In addition, the file name of the video data attached to the appraisal document has only been used to specify the time to make a preparation for any part of the video as data for which the video is measured.
② There was no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the burden of maintaining and repairing gold. The gold model of the instant automobile parts was worn-out for at least ten years since they were manufactured, and thus, the cost of maintaining and maintaining gold would naturally be required, and the said cost was appropriated in the price of the parts.
In the case of the damage or loss of gold in Korea IM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea IM"), which is the original contractor, it was recognized that it should be repaired at its own expense by the subcontractor.
In the cost statement submitted by the defendant, the expenses for the maintenance and repair of gold were included.
It is reasonable to include the fee for maintenance and repair in the calculation of the fee processing cost as the risk of the product transferred to the manufacturer by the subcontractor to the cost of maintenance and repair of the aged gold type.
The illegality of false appraisal can not be recognized solely by the excessive cost.
Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to make a false appraisal.
B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment for 8 months and 2 years of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. The defendant alleged that he had no intention to make a false appraisal at the time of the instant case as the grounds of appeal for the determination of mistake of facts by the defendant. Thus, the court below is legitimate.