보조금관리에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.
1. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the gist of the grounds for appeal, the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part of the fraud that acquired subsidies under the name of false workers’ personnel expenses is that the Defendant received total of KRW 80,537,950 (including KRW 52,027,321 among them) by receiving project funds for the social enterprise promotion project from a port city with false content. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant violated the Subsidy Act that received subsidies in the name of false workers’ personnel expenses by filing a false application is that the Defendant received subsidies from the port city with false content and received subsidies of KRW 52,027,321 from the National Treasury subsidies.
Considering the date and place of the crime, the victim, and the specific form of the act, the above fraud and the part concerning the violation of the Subsidy Support Act are identical to the facts of the crime, and there are several results resulting from the same crime.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do10896 Decided September 27, 2013). Likewise, the part concerning the fraud of the instant facts charged as a false project development cost and the part regarding the violation of the Subsidy Support Act, which received a false project development cost subsidy by means of a false application, are identical to the facts constituting a crime in basic facts, and are in a commercial concurrent relationship as a result of the same crime.
However, the lower court deemed that each of the above crimes of fraud and each of the crimes of violation of the Subsidy Act are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, and determined the Defendant’s punishment within the scope of the punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below may be maintained any more.