logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.01.19 2016노258
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Legal principles have special provisions concerning the act of illegally receiving subsidies for the establishment and operation of child care centers under the Infant Care Act by misunderstanding the legal principles. As such, the Infant Care Act, which is not the Act on Subsidy Management, should apply to the act of unlawfully receiving the State expenses out of the various kinds of allowances in this case, for the special work allowances in agricultural and fishing villages and working environment improvement expenses.

B. Cheating of sentencing can be found guilty

Even if the court below's punishment (the imprisonment of 2 years of probation and the community service order of 80 hours in August) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. The lower court applied Article 54(4)3 of the Infant Care Act to Article 54(2)1 of the Infant Care Act and Article 54(2)3-b of the holding as to the crime (the point of borrowing the certificate of infant care teacher) of the Act, Article 54(4)3 of the Infant Care Act as stated in the relevant law for the crime of 3-A (the fact of receiving the subsidy by improper means) of the same Act.

However, Article 54 (2) of the former Infant Care Act (amended by Act No. 1321, May 18, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) was amended by the lower court as of September 19, 2015 and enforced from September 19, 2015 (see Article 1 of the Addenda to the Infant Care Act (amended by May 18, 2015). Thus, Article 54 (3) 3 of the former Infant Care Act shall apply to the criminal facts of the above crime committed by the Defendant prior to the enforcement of the above Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by applying the relevant legal provisions to the crime in this part.

(b) regarding the number of crimes;

arrow