beta
Text
The judgment below
Of those, the part not guilty against Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
Of the facts charged against B
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Whether a subsidy is a national subsidy or a local subsidy under the Act on the Management of Subsidies (not guilty part against Defendant B) must be determined on the basis of the source of financial resources that are not the granting entity.
Even if the instant subsidy is not a state subsidy, it is recognized that Defendant B applied for a false subsidy to the competent Gu office, thereby violating the Local Finance Act.
Nevertheless, the court below did not review the source of the subsidy of this case and judged that it was not guilty of this part of the charges on the basis of the State subsidy only based on the payer. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.
B. The charge of embezzlement (the guilty part against the Defendants) against the Defendants of the lower court (the fine of KRW 900,000,000, and fine of KRW 700,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor applied Article 40 of the Subsidy Management Act to “Violation of the Local Finance Act” among the names of Defendant B’s crimes, and applied Article 97(1) of the Act to “Article 97(1) of the Local Finance Act,” and applied Article 2-A of the facts charged. The prosecutor applied for amendment of the Act to the effect that “the subsidy” in Article 2-A of the facts charged is changed to “the local subsidy” to “the local subsidy.”
Since this Court changed the object of the adjudication by permitting it, the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B could no longer be maintained.
However, among the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor's improper argument about the guilty part of the judgment of the court below regarding defendant B is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.
B. The defendants' erroneous determination of the defendants as to the defendants' unfair argument of sentencing and the amount of damage are both recognized and reflected.