logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.13 2017고단2943 (1)
보조금관리에관한법률위반등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. In the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of the 2017 Highest 2943 Highest 2943, where a farmer, etc. closes his/her business pursuant to a special Act on Assistance to Farmers and Fishermen, etc. following the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement, with respect to items deemed difficult to continue the business of cultivating and raising items, such as fruit fish farms, etc., due to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, a farmer, etc., subsidized a local government from the implementation fund of the Free Trade Agreement to pay subsidies for discontinuance to a local government; and where part of the production area of items eligible for subsidies for discontinuance of business closes, he/she cannot be eligible

This part of the facts charged was partially revised and recognized.

From April 201, the Defendant cultivated approximately KRW 950 Dublu on the land in Yong-gun C and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”).

On July 28, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for the payment of subsidies for closure under the pre-Yan Agricultural Technology Center in Young-gun’s written statement with the pre-Yan-gun under the pre-Yan, pretending to discard all Blus in the instant land, and subsequently, the Defendant was aware that D, who is a public official of the Mine-gun Agricultural Technology Center, conducted an on-site investigation on December 20, 2016, in order to verify whether the instant land was closed on or around December 20, 2016, and conducted a closed business by destroying approximately KRW 50 million out of approximately 950,000 among the total share cultivated in the instant land and moving to another place with the remainder of about 450.

However, in fact, even if the Defendant was planned to temporarily relocate 450 share of approximately 950 share of the instant land from the instant land to another place and received a subsidy for the closure of business, and then received a subsidy for the closure of business from Young-gun, he/she entirely disposes of the instant land, even if he/she received a subsidy for the closure of business.

arrow