특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Government contributions (in the facts charged, “government contributions” and “government subsidies” are mixed with the term “government contributions” and “government subsidies”. However, this court orders the prosecutor to clarify the meaning of each term, but does not comply with it. Thus, it is understood that all of the government contributions refer to “government contributions” in accordance with the guidelines for the common operation of knowledge and economy innovation projects in favor of the defendant, and are understood to mean “government contributions”) and private contributions are also included in the embezzlement amount and the amount of fraud of the charges charged by the private sector.
The private financing was paid by the defendant as the private financing in accordance with the business agreement by returning the money owned by the defendant as the private financing.
Therefore, the private shares are not owned by others, but owned by the defendant, so it cannot be the objects of embezzlement or fraud.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the private financing is recognized as an object of embezzlement or fraud, or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B) The Defendant was planned to follow-up pay the value-added tax at the time of receiving the sum of the value-added tax supplied and the value-added tax from the main institution or exclusive institution in charge of the government’s support “G business” (hereinafter “G business”), “M business” (hereinafter “M business”), and “ Q business” (hereinafter “ Q business”), and the amount of the value-added tax. The Defendant was immediately paid the value-added tax after the company’s temporary use for the convenience of business operations. Accordingly, the main institution or exclusive institution was entitled to refund the equivalent amount of the value-added tax.
Therefore, there was no intention to acquire the amount equivalent to the value added tax from the defendant.
Nevertheless, the value-added tax amount is also included in the amount obtained by deceit or embezzlement.