보조금관리에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The decision of innocence by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is a mistake of fact, which affected the judgment, and the prosecutor appealed.
The facts charged are as shown in the attached Form.
The judgment of the court of the court below was acquitted on the following grounds: The Korean Health and Welfare Information Development Institute paid activity support earnings for disabled persons to the incorporated association F, the Korean Health and Welfare Information Development Institute's financial resources of the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute are the self-paid charges for disabled persons who applied for subsidies and activity support provided at the ratio of 7:3 of the state and market price; and the Korea Health and Welfare Information Development Institute of Health and Welfare in granting the above activity support profits for disabled persons, without distinguishing the state subsidies from the city subsidies and the charges for disabled persons.
Therefore, although the defendant used the income from activity support for disabled persons paid to F, an incorporated association, as the facts charged.
Even if the above profits are mixed with the subsidies of the Si as well as the contributions of the disabled themselves, it is difficult to specify the state subsidies subject to the Act on the Management of Subsidies among them.
The facts charged by the prosecutor of the lower court's misapprehension of the legal principles of the lower court's judgment are that the defendant used indirect subsidies paid to F, an incorporated association under his/her representative, for other purposes.
Nevertheless, the court of the court below did not decide on the indirect subsidy, and examined only the state subsidy (so called mixed).
“The conclusion was made.”
This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
The court below examined the concept, specification, amount, etc. of indirect subsidies.
the United States.
Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1769 Decided May 31, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8769 Decided March 25, 201, etc., referred to by the court below, are governed by the Subsidy Management Act.