beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against Defendant A is too heavy (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) or is too harsh (a prosecutor), and the sentence of the lower court against Defendant C (three years of suspended execution with prison labor for a period of one year and six months, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service work) is deemed unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine the defendant A as well as the reasons for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.
All of the subsidized subsidy was used in accordance with the purpose of the subsidized project, the fact that the defendant paid the construction cost at his own expense after the subsidy was granted, the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment other than the previous criminal punishment for the violation of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, the social and family relationship is solid, and the fact that the social and family relation is divided, and it is against the depth of his mistake is favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the crime of this case is a juristic person operated together by the defendant, and since the defendant was selected as a subsidized business operator without the ability to bear the cost of the construction, the defendant unilaterally submitted the repayment plan to Pyeongtaek-gun of the victim and did not actually recover actual damage; the crime is poor and the amount of fraud is not much; the members of the B fishery partnership corporation, a subsidized business operator, formally, the defendant (600 weeks), the wife AJ (600 weeks), the wife AK (300 weeks), the wife AL (300 weeks), the wife AM (200 weeks), and the wife AM (200 weeks), etc.; and even if the defendant actually belongs to all property benefits from the act of acquiring the subsidy of 1 billion won, the defendant merely submitted the repayment plan to the damage victim, and the defendant did not actually recover actual damage; the victim Y-gun, on March 19, 2013, issued the payment plan to the above partnership corporation and the seizure charges to the defendant until 300,813.