beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is specified by the difference between the data on the transportation of the national land and N’s sales account books (POS and Points) with respect to the payment records of the Defendant’s card. Therefore, if the Defendant’s primary supply of certain cargo vehicles out of the three cargo vehicles owned by the Defendant exceeds the actual primary supply, regardless of which card was used, the Defendant may be deemed to have obtained the subsidies by unfolding the primary flow.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in collusion with M in the same manner as stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, Defendant B received a subsidy of KRW 572,741 from January 3, 2014 to December 30, 2014 and acquired it by deception.
B. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the oil purchase card for cargo vehicles shall be issued by setting the limit and frequency of use for each cargo vehicle; (b) the oil purchase card shall meet the conditions under which oil can be paid only when used in compliance with the requirements for use; (c) as alleged by the Defendant, the transit purchased using any specific cargo vehicle purchase card shall be stored in the tank lock, mixed with the transit purchased using the specific cargo vehicle purchase card, and shall be deducted from one of three cargo vehicles owned
If it is used, it is difficult to regard the transit purchased with a card that should be used only for a specific cargo vehicle as an act of receiving a fuel subsidy by using an appropriate card because it is not known that the transit will not be used only for the cargo vehicle, and it is eventually impossible to ascertain whether each cargo vehicle satisfies the requirements for paying a fuel subsidy. However, the facts charged of this case in collusion with M, the defendant paid a credit card by paying it in excess of the actual limit, and obtained the subsidy by fraud, as alleged by the defendant.