logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.08.23 2018노2154
영유아보육법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The ground for misunderstanding of facts (as to the violation of the Infant Care Act as stated in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the judgment of the original court) G applied for a normal day at least 11 days each month from April 11, 2016 to August 31, 2016 to the child care center, and H applied for a normal day at least 11 days each month from September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2016 to the child care center, and the Defendant received a legitimate subsidy.

However, since the court below found all of the facts charged guilty, there is an error of mistake in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the ground that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that G and H received subsidies as if he had the normal meaning as stated in this part of the facts charged, by clearly explaining the judgment on the above assertion under the title of the judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion on this is without merit.

B. The judgment of the first instance court is reversed solely on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

arrow