Violation of the Budget and Management of Subsidies Act

Residential 00:00 00 **

피고인은 2002. 7. 1. 경부터 현재까지 OO시장을 역임하면서 2003. 12. 경 농림부에서 시행하는 총사업비 약 24억 8, 400만 원 규모 ( 국고보조금 7억 4, 520만 원 ( 30 % ), 지방비 지원금 4억 9, 680만 원 ( 20 % ), 자부담금 12억 4, 200만 원 ( 50 % ) } 의 ' 2004 화훼생산 ( 수출 ) 단지 조성사업 ' 과 관련된 국고보조금 및 지방비 지원금 지급업무를 총괄하는 자인바 , 1. 이00 ( 2004. 3. 2. 경부터 현재까지 00시 배원예과 소속 농촌지도사로 근무하면서 위 사업을 담당한 실무자임 ), 김00 ( 2004. 1. 3. 경부터 2005. 3. 11. 경까지 00시 배원예과 소속 특용작물팀장으로 근무 ) 과 공모하여 , 농림부에서 위 화훼단지 조성사업을 실시하기 위해 00시에 내려준 ' 농림사업 시행지침서 ' 및 ' 농림사업 실시규정 ' 에 의하면, ① 사업신청 당시 사업자가 자부담금 12억 4, 200만 원 상당을 부담할 능력이 있어야 하고, ② 자부담금 부담능력과는 별도로 화훼단지 조성사업 부지를 이미 확보하고 있어야 하며, ③ 관련 법률에 의하여 시설설치에 문제가 되는 지역은 지원대상에서 제외하여야 하고, ④ 사업자가 법인인 경우 총출 자금이 1억 원 이상이어야 하며, ⑤ 생산을 주목적으로 하는 법인은 총 출자액의 50 % 이상을 생산요소인 현물 ( 농지, 시설 등 ) 로 출자하여야 하고, ⑥ 출자금을 포함한 자기 자본금을 사업비의 자부담금 ( 12억 4, 200만 원 ) 이상으로 확보하여야 하며, ⑦ 조합원이 5가구 이상으로서 당해 법인 구성원 중 부적격자가 없어야 하고 특정인의 개인사업을 위하여 위장설립하지 않았다는 사실이 확인되어야 하고, ⑧ 법인 설립 후 1년 이상의 운영실적이 있어야만 위 화훼단지 조성사업의 사업자로 선정하여 국고보조금과 지방비 지원금을 지급하도록 규정하고 있으므로, 00화훼영농조합법인 ( 대표 서OO ) 이 위와 같은 요건을 갖춘 경우에 한하여 사업자로 선정한 후 국고보조금과 지방비 지원금을 지급하여야 할 업무상 임무가 있음에도 불구하고 , 2004. 5. 17. 경 00시 00동 1100 소재 00시청 배원예과 사무실에서, 그 임무에 위배하여 ① 위 서OO은 1995년 00영농조합법인을 설립하여 2억 8, 000만 원 상당의 시설원예보조금을 교부받아 약 9, 000평의 시설하우스를 설치하였고, 2001년에는 시설원 예농가 폐타이어 소각열 이용시설 설치사업자로 선정되어 4억 7, 500만 원의 보조금을 교부받아 사업을 시행하였으나 모두 실패함에 따라 그 과정에서 농협에서 대출받은 약 5억 4, 800만 원 중 약 3억 9, 000만 원 상당을 연체하여 2002. 7. 1. 자로 신용불량자로 등재된 관계로 자부담금 12억 4, 200만 원을 부담할 능력이 전혀 없었고, 00 화훼영농 조합법인의 다른 구성원들 또한 서OO의 처, 매형, 처조카 등으로 자부담 능력이 전혀 없었으며, ② 위 서00은 대부분의 사업부지에 대하여 토지 소유자들과 매매계약만을 체결하였을 뿐 소유권 또는 등기된 임차권을 취득한 상태가 아니었고, ③ 화훼단지를 조성하려는 지역은 광미적치장과 그 인근 농경지 및 구거 ( 농수로 ) 로서 서00이 광미적 치장에 적치되어 있던 ' 광미 ( 폐기물관리법상의 지정폐기물로서 중금속 오염물질임 ) ' 를 불법으로 농경지에 매립하여 사업부지를 조성한 것이며, ④ 00화훼영농조합법인의 출자금은 5, 000만 원에 불과하고, ⑤ 위 5, 000만 원은 전액 현금출자한 것이지 현물출자 부분은 전혀 없으며, ⑥ 00 화훼영농조합법인의 자기자본금은 5, 000만 원으로서 사업자가 확보하여야 할 자부담금 12억 4, 200만 원에 현저히 미달하고, ⑦ 조합원 5명 중 4명이 서00 및 그 친인척으로서 조합원이 5가구로 구성되었다고 보기 어려워 00 화훼 영농조합법인은 서OO의 개인사업을 위하여 위장설립한 것이며, ⑧ 00 화훼영농조합법인의 설립일은 2004. 4. 14. 로서 설립 직후 국고보조금 및 지방비 지원금을 교부신청하는 등 00화훼영농조합법인이 ' 농림사업 시행지침서 ' 및 ' 농림사업 실시규정 ' 에 규정된 사업자 자격을 전혀 갖추지 못하였고, 사실을 자부담금을 전혀 지출하지 않았음에도 자부담금을 지출한 것처럼 가장하기 위하여 허위 세금계산서를 첨부하여 보조금 교부신청을 한 사실을 잘 알면서, 00화훼영농조합법인에게 피해자 대한민국으로부터 미리 수령하여 놓았던 국고보조금 184, 691, 610원 및 피해자 00시 소유의 지방비 지원금 123, 127, 740원을 지급함으로써 00 화훼영농조합법인에게 합계 307, 819, 350원 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하게 하고 피해자 대한민국에게 184, 691, 610원, 피해자 OO시에게 123, 127, 740원 상당의 손해를 각 가함과 동시에 00화훼영농조합법인이 허위신청이나 기타 부정한 방법으로 보조금을 교부받는다는 사실을 알면서 국고보조금 184, 691, 610원을 교부하고 ,

2. 00, Ab00 (on March 12, 2005, from around 00 to around 00, as the leader of a special purpose crop), 100 (on March 3, 2005 to July 13, 2006, as the manager of a special purpose crop) and 00 (on March 12, 2005, as the manager of a special purpose crop, from around 3, 2005 to around 13, 2006).

3. From March 2 to July 13, 2006, in collusion with the above 00 city agricultural production center (the representative 00 city agricultural production center) and limited to the case meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the duty to pay the national subsidy and the local subsidy has been performed. However, if the project is not completed by February 28, 2006, the above project is revoked, and if it is no longer possible to receive the national subsidy and the local subsidy and the local subsidy, it is anticipated that the above project should be recovered from the above 307,819, 350 local subsidy and the local subsidy were not granted, and the defendant violated the above 00 city agricultural production project's qualification at around February 28, 2006 to the above 00 city agricultural production project's office, and the defendant did not meet the above 200 city agricultural development project's qualification and reported the problem to the effect that the project is not implemented in the course of self-audit. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 206580, Feb. 28, 20000. , 20000.

The relationship between the government subsidy and the local subsidy of KRW 307,819,350 was being investigated by the 00 police station in relation to the unjust payment of the State subsidy and the local subsidy, and the 000 CFF failed to meet all the business requirements stipulated in the "Guidelines for the Implementation of Agricultural and Forestry Projects" and the "Regulations for the Implementation of Agricultural and Forestry Projects" as described in paragraph 1, and the fact is that the FFF failed to pay the self-payment at all, which would be the case that the FFF

It is well known that the application for a subsidy is to be made by attaching a false tax invoice and a written confirmation on payments without passbooks, and at the same time, it is to provide the victim's 00-FFFFFFFFF with a subsidy of KRW 554,074,830 and a subsidy of KRW 369,383,220 owned by the victim in advance from the Republic of Korea and a subsidy of KRW 923,458,050 in total to the victim's 00-FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

2. Determination

A. Specific circumstances, such as the content and nature of the business to administer the breach of trust

In light of the foregoing, the intent of the crime of breach of trust shall be recognized only where the perception that one or a third party obtained property benefits (including dolusent perception) in consideration of various circumstances, such as the details and motive leading up to his/her duties, details of his/her duties, probability of damages, etc., and where it is recognized that the act is an intentional act under the awareness that he/she or a third party would inflict damage on the principal, and the intent to commit the crime of breach of trust shall not be held liable solely on the ground that he/she was negligent in taking responsibility or neglecting his/her duty (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do810, Jul. 9, 2004; 2007Do675, Nov. 15, 2007; 2007Do675, Nov. 15, 2007).

B. According to the records of this case, the following facts are acknowledged. (1) According to the Agricultural and Forestry Project Implementation Guidelines, provisions on the implementation of agriculture and forestry projects, the agricultural corporate support conditions, and the standards for follow-up management, which provide for the selection of the project recipients of the project for the development of the flower Production Export Complex (1) 2004, the project operator must have the ability to bear an amount equivalent to 50 million won of the total project cost of the flower Project in this case, which is equivalent to 1.24 billion won of the total project cost of the flower Project in this case, and the site for the development of the flower Complex in this case must be already secured separately from the ability to bear self-paid charges. The area at issue for the installation of facilities under the related Acts must be excluded from the scope of the project. In the case of a corporation, the total amount of the investment shall be at least 100 million won, and the corporation with the focus of production shall invest at least 50 percent of the total amount of the investment in kind ( farmland, facilities, etc.) with the production factors at least 1.

(2) The letter 00 established a farming association corporation in 1995 with a subsidy of approximately KRW 280,000,000 for the installation of approximately KRW 900,000 facilities. On July 1, 200, 200 with a subsidy of KRW 470,500,000 for the installation of facilities for the removal of waste agricultural households in the name of facility source, which was selected as an operator of the installation of facilities for the removal of waste agricultural households in 2001 and carried out the project, but with a failure to pay approximately KRW 39,000,000 out of KRW 8,000,00,000 for the above site for construction of 20,000 square meters for the above site for the removal of waste water in the name of 20,000,000 square meters, and 20,000,000 square meters for the above site for the removal of waste water in the name of 20,000.

(3) After the 00th day of March 2004, the application for subsidies was submitted. On April 14, 2004, to receive the instant subsidies, the 00th day of the establishment of the OO, KimO, last00, last 00, last 00, and last 14th day of April 14, 2004, the decision to grant subsidies was made to the OO, KimO, last 2000, and first day of April 14, 2004 with the Defendant’s approval, and the above OOOO's investment amount of KRW 50 million, and the 50 million investment amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 was not made in cash, and the above 50,500,000,000,000 won was not made in full, and the 200,000,000 won or more was made.

4. 14. Although it has no record of operation for at least one year after its incorporation, it fails to meet the qualification as a business operator prescribed in guidelines for the implementation of agricultural and forest projects, regulations for the implementation of agricultural and forest projects, the conditions for support to agricultural corporations, and the standards

(4) On the other hand, 00 00 00 00 000 14400 00 00 00 00 00 00 , 00 14 00 , 000 00 , 000 , 00 00 m20 m200 m220 m200 m200 m200 m200 m20 m27 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m20 m3 m20 m20 m20 m20

( 6 ) 2004. 6. 경부터 언론과 의회에서 서OO이 광미로 농경지를 불법 매립한 사실 등을 문제삼자 00시는 2004. 7. 27. 경 서OO에게 2004 화훼생산 수출단지 조성사업 일시중지를 통보하였고, 사업이 중단되어 있던 2004. 10. 19. 경 지역경제과에서 화훼생 산단지 조성사업부지에 대한 광해방지사업의 일환으로 서울대학교 농업과학공동기기센터 ( 지오웍스 ) 에 용역을 의뢰하여 지오웍스는 2005. 1. 12. 경 광해방지사업 용역결과 최종보고회를 거친 다음, 같은 달 31. 경 하우스이설을 전제로 한 용역결과를 보고하였으나, 00시가 산자부 등으로부터 하우스 이설에 관한 지원금을 받을 수 없게 되자 배원 예과에서는 2005. 4. 26. 화훼단지 비닐하우스를 존치하면서 광해방지사업을 추진하는 방향으로 재검토를 요청하였고, 이에 서울대학교 농업과학공동기기센터는 2005. 5. 18 .

As a plan for blocking light brus in the flower complex, the existing light 20cm and 20cm and high-quality earth 20cm and more than 1.5cm and the synthetic high molecule car brus were maintained, and the results of services that can be accompanied by mining damage prevention were reported.

(7) Around May 30, 2005, Abrupt 00 reported to the Defendant that the measures to recover subsidies need to be taken if the O could not supplement the problem by preparing the document stating that the O's ‘the issues of promotion of the project (export) production complex' and the ‘report on countermeasures' will be prepared.

(8) Meanwhile, on January 10, 2005, the Yeongsan Seomjin basin environmental office issued the Seomjin basin environmental office with the order to restore the illegally reclaimed land in the Seomjin complex to its original state on or before May 10, 2005, but the order was not implemented by 00, which extended the period for the execution of the above order to restore to the original state until November 30, 2005. The 00 am on September 28, 2005 submitted a plan to implement the mining damage prevention under the situation that the Seomjin basin environmental office has maintained the Seomjin basin environmental office, and accepted the above plan under the condition that the Seomjin basin environmental office supplements the Seomjin basin environmental complex to its original state on or around October 14, 2005. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19034, Sep. 28, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19090, Oct. 14, 2006>

1. 17. 17. 00 The above 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 5th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 5th of the 20th of the 5th of the 20th of the 5th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 5th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 4th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3th of the 3th of the 5th of the 2.

C. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant continued to implement the project in cooperation with the Yeongsan River Environment Office or 00 South-do, etc. (OO) on the ground that he did not meet this business, and that he received the subsidy with false tax invoices and receipts in relation to the execution of his own charges. Meanwhile, at the time of the first subsidy, the Defendant decided to grant the first subsidy under the circumstance that the tax invoices submitted by 00 SOO were false. After the first subsidy was granted, the Defendant did not meet the business qualification requirements of 00 SOO Co., Ltd. (OO) and illegally reclaimed farmland. In addition, it is difficult to find that the Defendant did not receive any other 00 SO or 00 SO as a result of the fact that it was difficult to find that the Defendant was in violation of the provisions of this case’s law and regulations and did not receive any damages from the 2000 SO or 00 SO as a result of the fact-finding finding that the Defendant did not receive any other administrative subsidy or other damages from the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Song Jin-jin

Judges Kim Young-chul