사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On June 29, 2017, after the expiration of the time limit to submit a written statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s defense counsel by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles had submitted a written statement of argument on June 29, 2017, stating misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. On July 7, 2017, the first trial date of the lower judgment explicitly asserted the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
The above factual misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles constitute grounds that affect the judgment subject to ex officio determination, as seen below.
(1) Even if the defendant prepares and submits an accounting document that is not true in some of the detailed items of the amount of expenditure in accordance with fraud and violation of the Infant Education Act, it cannot be deemed that he/she has received school expenses or meal expenses for free or that he/she has induced the competent authority under the Infant Education Act.
The defendant shall not be granted the intention of fraud.
(2) The defendant in violation of the Food Sanitation Act is only a dietitian who has agreed to lend his/her license with a dietitian and has not employed a dietitian.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two million won of fine, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment to the effect that “3,926,860 won” in the fourth sentence of the third sentence of the indictment to “9,541,500 won” in the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the indictment by this Court, and the fifth sentence to “3,926,860 won” in the fourth sentence to “6,791,100 won” in the fourth sentence to “32,205,860 won” in the fourth sentence to “35,732,60 won” in the first sentence of the fourth sentence to “35,732,60 won,” respectively, and this court permitted this and changed the judgment.
As long as a single sentence is sentenced for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the modified part and the remaining convicted part, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed ex officio.