logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2013.12.20 2013노2177
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant merely specified the past construction completed for the convenience of the application as a subsidy support project, but actually implemented the project eligible for subsidies, the Defendant withdrawn the application for subsidies immediately after the occurrence of the instant case and returned all the loans granted at low interest from the Suhyup, and the State subsequently paid subsidies (interest marginal profits) to the Suhyup, which cannot be deemed to have been paid by the Defendant as its own subsidy, there is an intentional fraud on the part of the Defendant.

It is difficult to deem that the subsidy was received by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (basic fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “False application or other unlawful means” as referred to in Article 40 of the Act on the Management of Subsidies for the misunderstanding of misunderstanding of Facts and misunderstanding of legal principles refers to the affirmative and passive act that may affect the decision-making on the grant of subsidies by means of deceptive scheme or other acts recognized as unlawful by social norms, even though it is not possible to receive subsidies under the law in normal

on the other hand, "the case of receiving the subsidy by illegal means" means the case of receiving the subsidy for the affairs or projects not subject to the subsidy.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8651, Feb. 1, 2008). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., a farmer of the aquaculture project in 2012.

arrow