2015dan6683 Violation of the Subsidy Management Act

A, head of ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives

Residence

Reference domicile

Lee Young-young (Court Prosecution) (Court of Justice) and Kim Jong-woo (Court of Justice)

Law Firm Pyeongmun, Attorney Park Jong-chul et al.

September 22, 2016

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this judgment shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

○○ Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Fisheries Cooperatives”) is an indirect subsidy program selected in 2013 'Public Center development project' and ‘low temperature freezing and freezing warehouse support project' in 2013, which is implemented by the potter-gun-gun, and the respondent is the head of the ○○ Fisheries Cooperatives.

In the case of "the 2013 SPG creation project", the total project cost of 833, 334, and 00 billion won was set and 40% of them is 33,34, and 00 won which are 40% of them shall be borne by the indirect subsidy program operator (hereinafter referred to as "self-payment") and the other 30% of the cost of operation shall be granted by the State (the cost of 250,000,000 won) and local governments (the Si cost of 125,000,000, 125,000, 000, 000), respectively.

In addition, in the case of "the low temperature freezing assistance program" in 2013, the total project cost is 500,000,000, and 10% of which is 50,000, and 50% of the other project cost is 50%, and 40% of the other project cost is to be subsidized by the state (the state expense of 250,000,000, 000), and the local government (the Si expense of 100,000,000, 100, 00, 000, 00).

However, the Defendant, who did not have the ability to pay self-charges in the ○○ Fisheries Cooperative, agreed to lease all of the factories and facilities to be built according to the ○○ Processing Center development project, etc. with the new ○○○○○ who operated the “○○ Sea,” which is a fireworks distributor, to pay the self-charges on the ○○ Sea and to pay the self-charge on the ○○ Sea instead of leasing the same fact to the pool-gun.

On April 4, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 33,34,00 to Cheongjin-gun as if ○○○○ Cooperatives actually assumed, and received KRW 833,34,00 from 00 on April 17, 2013, December 17, 2013, 834,000 on three occasions, including February 21, 2014 (250,00, 00, 125, 00, 125, 125, 000, 333, 304, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 000, 200, 000, 125, 000, 333, 334, 201, 200.

As a result, the Defendant received a total of KRW 500,00,000 by false application or other unlawful means.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial and the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial ought to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest.

B. In light of the above legal principles, it appears that ○○○○○○○○○○○ Fisheries Association had been lawfully adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the following circumstances indicated in the evidence evidence, i.e., (i) the development of a brand, and first selected ○○ Sea as a joint business entity, which was established in Incheon Metropolitan City, and proposed that ○○○○○○○○ Association, prior to the consultation on ○○○ Fisheries, operated the instant business jointly with the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association, which was an investment-related business entity; and (ii) it was discussed that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Association, which was an investment-related business entity; and (iii) it was necessary to separately consider that ○○○○○○○○○○ Association was an investment-related business entity, and that ○○○○○○○○ Association was an investment-related business entity.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant is publicly announced under the main sentence of Article 58(2

Judge Iseather