logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.08.30 2018노890
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The amount of the subsidy amount equivalent to 171 U.S. pension 171, 152 and 1 of both liquids, which was normally purchased and installed by the Defendant after being notified of the decision to grant the subsidy shall be deducted from the amount obtained by defraudation stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes fraud by infringing on the victim's property, and even if considerable consideration has been paid or no damage has occurred to the victim's entire property, it does not affect the establishment of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007). Meanwhile, the exercise of rights by deception is a case of exercise of rights as a means of deception.

Even if the act belonging to the exercise of the right and the act of deception belonging to the means are comprehensively observed to the extent that such deception can not be acceptable as a means of exercising the right under the social norms, the act belonging to the exercise of the right constitutes a crime of fraud, and if the defendant prepares a false contract, etc. and submits it to the public official in charge and received excessive subsidies, the act in question shall be deemed as not to be acceptable as a means of exercising the right under the social common sense, and the whole act shall be deemed to be unlawful. Thus, the whole of the subsidies granted shall constitute a crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do2371, Jun. 15, 2007; 2010Do15454, Nov. 24, 2011; 2015Do14365, Feb. 18, 2016). In light of the above legal principles, examining the defendant's assertion of the facts, it is obvious that the defendant received subsidies in an unlawful manner.

arrow