특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;
3. However, for a period of five years from the date this ruling becomes final and conclusive.
1. The grounds of appeal shall be determined to the extent that the defendant supplements the grounds of appeal, if the defense counsel of the defendant submits the grounds for appeal after the period for submission of the appeal;
Meanwhile, the Defendant did not sign and seal the prosecutor’s written indictment, which was served on June 29, 2016, in the form of “written request for dismissal of public prosecution” submitted by him/her, and the prosecutor drafted a written protocol for interrogation of a suspect by threatening or visiting the Defendant. As such, the Defendant asserted that the indictment was null and void in violation of the provisions of the Act, however, the Defendant withdrawn the above assertion via “written request for withdrawal of application for dismissal of public prosecution” on July 13, 2016.
A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine 1) On May 4, 2009, the Victim Korea Institute for the Promotion of Industry and Materials of Korean Parts and Materials (hereinafter “Promotion Institute”) was integrated into the Victim Institute (Management Work) and the Korea Institute for Evaluation of Industrial Technology Evaluation and Evaluation (Evaluation Work) of Korea (Korea Institute for Evaluation of Industrial Technology). It refers to the unification into “the Victim Promotion Institute” for convenience.
In the following respect, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.
A) The Defendant’s E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) lent KRW 160 million from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) to pay private contributions. On November 27, 2008, the fact that the Defendant received government contributions from the Victim Promotion Agency for the second year and paid the above government contributions to G is recognized.
However, the Defendant, from the beginning, temporarily borrowed money from G, did not intend to immediately repay the government contributions, and offered that G repaid money for accounting purposes by proposing that it would have repaid the money, and used the money again from G for the research and development of the “F” task (hereinafter “instant task”).
B) The lower court, on November 28, 2008, determined that the Defendant was not the instant task, but the amounting to KRW 143 million out of the government contributions in the following year.