beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.01 2016노7126

축산물위생관리법위반등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, who is not a normal lawsuit, only claimed insurance money to the damaged insurance company by receiving a diagnosis from G with respect to a non-permanent action, which is not a normal lawsuit, and did not deceiving the damaged insurance company as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby deceiving the insurance proceeds.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 6.5 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who operates a “D farm” in Pyeongtaek-si C, had the intent to acquire the insurance proceeds from livestock accidents operated with 50% subsidies from the Government.

On March 14, 2011, the Defendant: (a) made a false contract to sell KRW 100,000 to F, a seller when shipping KRW 100,00,00 to the Defendant’s normal cattle owned in the above D farm; (b) obtained a false diagnosis of KRW 50,000, which stated that a veterinarian’s injury is the cause of insurance payment; and (c) prepared three copies of the photograph of the cattle seated so as to be seen as non-permanent cattle (beb), and submitted them to the damaged private person B on March 14, 201; and (d) received KRW 1,152,00 from the damaged insurance company on March 18, 201; and (d) received KRW 1,000 from the damaged insurance company on March 18, 201, KRW 1,000 from 10 to 30,000,000 from 10 to 15,010.

2) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant constituted a crime of fraud, on the grounds that it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired the insurance proceeds by means of claiming the insurance proceeds to the damaged insurance company by obtaining a false transaction agreement and a false diagnosis as stated in this part of the facts charged.

3) The lower court’s judgment and the first instance court’s examination are duly adopted and examined.