사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants C shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
, however, the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (Defendant A), the above Defendant was aware that I obtained consent from J and K at the time of receiving the resident registration number of J and K, and there was no perception that I received personal information by fraud or other improper means or by other improper means.
2) Since the above Defendant was delegated with the authority to prepare a contract for the commission of workplace skill development training for J and K by a business owner from L, the president of the instant children’s house, and to apply for training expenses, the preparation of each document in the name of L does not constitute the foregoing Article.
3) Article 40 of the Subsidy Management Act, which is a violation of the Subsidy Management Act (the Defendants), punishs “persons, etc. who received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means.” Since it is apparent that the Defendants are not the Defendants but the owners of childcare centers, such as L, etc., who received the instant subsidies from the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, the Defendants do not constitute the subject of the instant penal provision.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution in October; and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the Bill of Indictment with the fact that the Prosecutor violated the Subsidy Management Act among the facts charged against Defendant A, the fraud, and the facts charged against Defendant C in the case of Defendant A. This Court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, and in the case of Defendant A, this part of the facts charged.