[1] Violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies 2012 (1) Defendant A,

A modified name of crime against B: Embezzlement, fraud, and 2 Defendant

Category D, E, F, G, H, and I: Fraud

1. A;

2

3

4

5

6.F

7

8

9. I

Inception metal (prosecutions) and dual-line (public trial)

Law Firm Multi-Hunting (private ships for defendant A, B, and C)

Attorney J in charge

Law Firm Masung (Defendant D, E, F, G, H, and I)

[Defendant-Appellant] K

July 16, 2013

Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and I shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000.

If the above defendants did not pay the above fine, the amount of 50,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Defendants are confined in the workhouse.

To order the above Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fine.

Defendant A and B shall be acquitted respectively.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be disclosed.

Criminal facts

L cooperative corporations established for the purpose of improving fishery productivity through the rationalization of fishery management, the total number of members is about 20 persons as corporations established for the purpose of improving the income sources of the association members, environmental movement, etc., and the above defendant A served as the representative of the above corporation from January 2007, and the above defendant B served as the representative of the above corporation from January 2007, and the above defendant B served as the general director of the above corporation from January 2007, and the rest defendants are members of the above corporation.

Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and I were selected as a business operator by submitting a business plan (total project cost of KRW 104,00,000, business operator 13, subsidy of KRW 82,92,00 per capita, KRW 21,008,00 per capita: KRW 1,61,616,00 per capita) with the result of the examination, but they were willing to receive subsidies by means of a false issuance of a tax invoice as if they were to bear the self-paid cost, even though they did not bear the self-paid cost.

Defendant C, at a place where the location is unknown on March 2, 2009, Ma, which is separate from Defendant C, issued a tax invoice and submitted a settlement report to Defendant D, separately confirmed 0, Defendant G, and H, that “I would not have the ability to pay the self-paid cost, and would request Defendant E, F, I, and separate P to pay the self-paid cost by issuing a tax invoice to Defendant E, F, I, and separate N, and that “I would have the ability to pay the self-paid cost by issuing a tax invoice and submitting a settlement report to Defendant E, F, I, and separate P received the self-paid cost with the head of the Tong to return the cost, and at the expense of the head of the Tong to bear the self-paid cost.” The Defendant E, F, and separate P agreed to obtain the subsidy by fraud and other unlawful means.

From June 26, 2009, the above N made a false request for subsidies from Hongcheon-gun to the personnel in charge of the Agricultural Affairs of the Hongcheon-gun Office for the payment of subsidies, as if he did not bear the expenses for self-payment as above, and he received the total of KRW 6,384,000 per capita from Hongcheon-gun to the agricultural bank passbook in the above N on June 26, 2009, and acquired it under the name of 63,840,000 as subsidies.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements made by witnesses N and Q in the fourth trial records;

1. Each police statement of Q Q;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol on D, E, F, I,O, G, H, M, C, P, and0 (Defendant C);

only)

1. Statement of statement by the police concerning the use in custody (limited to the defendant C);

1. Possibility of the completion of the project, such as a report on the settlement of accounts, settlement of accounts, disbursement resolution, etc. within inland waters, 209;

letter, request for subsidy and letter of delegation of receipt, each report on the completion of each inland storage and support project;

Each subsidy settlement statement, each written request, each letter of delegation, each letter of delegation, each internal temperature

Storage and facility design specifications;

1. Low temperature storage class installation photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, and C: Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud and each fine)

Selection)

1. Detention in a workhouse (the above Defendants)

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment (the above Defendants)

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's assertion

1. Determination on Defendant C and his/her defense counsel’s assertion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant C asserts that the part of the additional installation of the one square fluor coolant storage machine was not notified of the amount of the additional installation than the content of the existing subsidy, and that the payment was not made by N, and that the payment was not made by fraudulent issuance of the tax invoice as if it was borne by him.

B. Determination

However, even though it is recognized that Defendant C had paid KRW 1,616,00 to N’s account on June 24, 2009, Defendant C had an additional amount of KRW 1,616,00,000, it is recognized that Defendant C had not paid the amount yet. In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C had deceiving the victim by means of falsely issuing a tax invoice for the place where Defendant C had borne the self-paid share by N., and thus, the above assertion is rejected.

2. The part of Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant D, etc. cannot be deemed to be specified in the facts charged on the ground that: (a) the Defendants conspired to commit the act by any method, anywhere, and the scope of the Defendants conspired; (b) each of the Defendants shared to commit the act by doing any act; (c) the Defendants did not clarify what relationship between the Defendants’ respective act and the other Defendants’ act; and (d) Defendant D, etc. did not directly receive the basic construction, electrical construction, roof construction, etc., or paid to N, only a part of the amount that was paid to them; (c) Defendant D, etc. demanded the cost of self-responsibility as a requirement for subsidization; (d) the actual burden of self-responsibility is not required to coincide with the recipient of the subsidy; and (d) Defendant D’s act of receiving the subsidy by paying the subsidy on behalf of N, etc. constitutes a business eligible for subsidization, and thus, Defendant D’s act of receiving the subsidy on behalf of N, etc. does not constitute a criminal act that does not exceed the actual amount of the subsidy, and thus, Defendant D’s actual receipt of the subsidy.

B. Determination

(1) As to the unspecified assertion of facts charged

The purpose of the law that allows the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the object of a trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of its defense right by specifying the criminal defendant's status against the defendant. As such, the specification of the facts charged is sufficient if it is specific by pointing out the date, time, venue, method, purpose, goods, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts constituting the cause of the prosecution from those of other facts charged, and even if part of the facts charged is somewhat unclear, it does not affect the validity of the prosecution as long as the facts charged can be specified by other stated matters together with it (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do2260, Jan. 20, 1987).

The facts charged of this case in mind that Defendant D et al. did not bear a self-charges but did not bear a self-charge between N et al. at a construction business operator around March 2, 2009, by issuing a tax invoice as if he/she did not bear a self-charge. Although he/she did not contain the actual self-charge, he/she did not bear a self-charge of KRW 1,616,00 or KRW 1,615,00,000 respectively, he/she paid a self-charge of the amount equivalent to KRW 6,67 square meters and one 8,00,000 each, with a false statement of accounts and completion report attached, and received subsidies through N around June 26, 2009 by forcing the victim Hongcheon-gun Office to demand a subsidy, and thus, he/she could not be likely to cause any confusion with any other means of defense to the extent that it does not interfere with any specific means of defense.

(2) As to the Defendants’ assertion that they had a substantial burden of self-responsibility

According to the evidence in the summary of the evidence mentioned above, Defendant D, G, and H did not pay N, while Defendant E, F, and I paid N 1,615,00 won to N, but only after N received N’s subsidy, they were returned 1,60,000 won to the Defendant [the P determined separately from the Defendant] on June 29, 2009, and around July 27, 2009, Defendant F was returned 1,615,000 won, and this 969,000 won was returned to the Defendant E, and the above Defendants cannot be exempted from the Defendant’s charges because they were almost consistent with the Defendant E’s self-paid charges if they were to receive the refund of the self-paid charges due to this opinion between N and N, and the remainder of the Defendants cannot be exempted from the Defendant’s charges.

(3) As to the assertion that there was no deception

Article 6 (1) 4 of the Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies from Hongcheon-gun provides that a person who intends to receive a subsidy shall submit to the head of the Gun an application stating the name or title and address of the applicant (paragraph (1)), the purpose and details of the subsidy program (paragraph (2) and the amount to be borne by himself/herself (paragraph (4). The subsidy in this case is granted to those who meet the ability to install a freezing storage in the form of taxes, etc. of the Hongcheon-gun Office on the condition of a certain amount's self-payment, and thus, the person who is actually responsible for the self-payment should not only be required to bear the expenses for the requirements for the grant, but also be consistent

On the other hand, deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and duty to observe each other in property transaction. It is sufficient if it is a method of facts that are the basis of judgment for allowing the other party to make a disposal of property that the other party wishes to commit, without necessarily being subject to false indication as to the important part of the juristic act. As such, as the above Defendants did not bear the actual burden, they constitute deception of fraud by preparing a false tax invoice, etc. as if they did not bear the actual burden, which constitutes deception of fraud.

(4) As to the assertion that there is no damage to the Hongcheon Military

In the absence of the said Defendants’ deception, the Defendant did not pay the instant subsidy at the Hongcheon-gun Office. Therefore, due to the said Defendants’ deception, the Hongcheon-gun Office suffered damages equivalent to the total amount of the subsidies paid.

(5) As to the assertion that a crime is established only with respect to their subsidies

According to Article 19 subparag. 4 of the Hongcheon-gun Subsidy Management Ordinance, when a subsidy has been received by false application or by other unlawful means, all or part of the subsidy granted may be ordered to be returned. If the amount of the subsidy stated in the application for the subsidy of this case is used as data to determine whether the above Defendants should work together with the subsidy to be paid by the said Defendants, and its requirements are clearly stated in a false manner, it can be the ground for the order to specify the return of the subsidy granted. Above all, since the above Defendants acquired the subsidy by fraud at once with the separately determinedO, P, and N, the above Defendants received the subsidy as their share, as well as the rest of the Defendants, separately determinedO, P, and P, the crime of fraud is established.

Parts of innocence

1. Defendant A and B

A. The part on embezzlement

(1) Summary of the facts charged

A subsidized project operator shall faithfully perform the subsidized project with due care as a good manager in accordance with the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, the details of decision to grant subsidies, or the dispositions of the head of a central government agency under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall not use

Nevertheless, the above Defendants conspired to use subsidies for other purposes and make a false report on performance.

(4) The defendant A and B shall use 00 won for natural purification activities, the remaining 1,759,00 won for the purpose of storage of 2,40 won for red-gun red-gun fishery business from around 1, 207 to December 18, 2007, 000 won for water supply, 1,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, and use the remaining 1,759,00 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 00 won for public officials in charge of inland water supply and fishing activities from around 00,000, 1,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities, 2,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities among public officials, 3,000 won for irrigation and fishing activities.

(2) Determination

(A) part of the embezzlement of subsidies in 2007 and 2008

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is acknowledged that the defendant A was the representative, the L Union corporation of which the defendant B had been in general office from Hongcheon-gun, and the defendant A and the defendant A, who had been in general, received the subsidy by fraud or other improper means, could not be deemed as having been sentenced to the crime of embezzlement under the former part of the Criminal Procedure Act, regardless of whether the above defendants were to receive the subsidy by fraud or other improper means, and since the non-indicted A cannot be deemed to have received it as a crime of embezzlement under the former part of the Criminal Procedure Act, the non-indicted A and the above defendants cannot be deemed to have not been punished for the crime of embezzlement.

(B) the embezzlement of subsidies in 2009 and 2010

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are recognized.

① A L cooperative corporation disbursed KRW 17,156,988 out of the amount of gross income in 2009 ( = KRW 5,529,152 + the amount carried forward + KRW 3,400,000 + the amount of KRW 4,030,000 + the amount of social organization subsidies received on April 30, 2009 + KRW 5,450,000,000, which was received on April 30, 2009; unlike the purpose of using the amount of assistance, the amount of KRW 17,156,98 out of the amount of the amount paid to public officials in charge of subsidy projects, such as the Hongcheon-Gun Agricultural Affairs and Fisheries Bureau, inland fisheries public officials in charge of inland fisheries, the exchange Sea Branch, and the East Fisheries Office, etc., to the extent of KRW 2,713,000,00.

② Gross income of L association corporations in 2010 = 28,185,164 won carried forward + KRW 1,252,164 + revenue of KRW 8,00,00, such as membership fees or membership fees + KRW 13,523,000 + social organization subsidies deposited in March 12, 2010 + KRW 5,432,300. Meanwhile, the gross income in 201 is KRW 25,752,864 + membership fees or membership fees + KRW 5,00,000 + KRW 13,50,000,000, and KRW 25,000,000 among subsidies and KRW 25,000,000, KRW 25,000,000, KRW 30,000,000, KRW 30,05,000, and KRW 15,05,00,000.

③ The LAC corporation had two agricultural cooperation accounts established in the name of Defendant A and two agricultural cooperation accounts established in the name of the corporation. However, the said corporation received membership fees, membership fees, and purchase expenses for control equipment, etc. from the agricultural cooperative account established in the name of A, and the subsidies for social organizations since 2009 were received from the agricultural cooperative account in the name of the corporation (the remainder of the agricultural cooperative account in the name of the LAC corporation appears to have been deposited with the money transferred from the account in the name of Defendant A to be used as the payment account such as telephone usage fees).

④ However, Defendant A and B paid expenses without clearly distinguishing LA’s subscription fees, membership fees, subsidies, etc. In addition, in the event that the amount of money falls short of that of passbook A and LA’s name, Defendant A intended to transfer money from the passbook in the name of the partnership to the account in the name of the partnership and intended to transfer money to the opposite. Meanwhile, in the case of the agricultural bank account in the name of the foregoing corporation deposited with the subsidy, most of the expenses incurred in restaurant, gasing expenses, etc., except for the portion transferred to the account in the name of the said corporation.

⑤ In addition, L Cooperatives made 20 times each year illegal fishing control, natural purification activities, etc., and the average of about 17-18 members attended each event to disburse approximately KRW 200,000 as meal expenses. In addition, the L Cooperatives paid approximately KRW 3,50,00 as meal expenses. In addition, the illegal fishing control vehicles and MF repair expenses and oil expenses necessary for ship operation were disbursed.

2) Relevant legal principles

It is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to a reasonable doubt. If there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it may be determined as the interest of the defendant. If the defendant does not properly explain his/her whereabouts or use of money in his/her custody even though there is no money entrusted to him/her, it may be presumed that the defendant embezzleds money compared to his/her discretion. However, if there is materials consistent with this, the defendant explained about his/her whereabouts or use of money for reasons for which it is difficult to recognize the existence of an intention of unlawful acquisition, and even if there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has separately deposited or returned money for another purpose, it cannot be recognized that the defendant has withdrawn money entrusted to him/her without permission and embezzled it as an intention of unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4979, Apr. 29, 2009).

3) Determination

According to the above facts, it is doubtful that Defendant A and B did not use the subsidies of social organizations received from the Hongcheon-gun Office for the specified purposes. However, without clearly distinguishing the above Defendants’ subsidies, subscription fees, membership fees, etc. ② Social organization subsidies received after 2009 are about 1/5 of the total revenues and expenses, and about 10% of the annual expenditure of the subsidies-related department’s public officials’ food and life-saving gift expenses. ③ The above association’s subsidies were disbursed approximately KRW 3.5 million of the illegal fishing regulation, nature purification promotion, and vessel oil expenses received from the Hongcheon-gun Office. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants were not guilty of the subsidies since the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone does not constitute 20 years of the subsidies and 3.5 years of the subsidies and 20 years of the subsidies and 10 years of the subsidies and 20 years of the subsidies and 20 years of the subsidies and 3 years of the subsidies and 10 years of the subsidies and 3 years of the subsidies.

B. Part on fraud

(1) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant A and B offered a false subsidy to n at a place where it is difficult to identify the place on March 2, 2009, at the time of separate determined M, the Defendant C, and the facility operator N, “A” to install a freezing and freezing door more larger than that on the plan, additionally cover the expenses at their own expense, and then to issue a tax invoice and make a settlement report to the effect that they bear the expenses. The above N intended to receive the subsidy by fraud and other illegal means. On June 2009, N did not bear the expenses of self-payment but did not bear the expenses as above to the employees in charge at the Hongcheon-gun National Agricultural Cooperative Livestock and the above Hongcheon-gun Office. Around June 26, 2009, N obtained the subsidy from Hongcheon-gun for each person as the passbook in the above N on June 26, 2009, and then acquired it under the name of 6,384,000,706,708,000.

(2) Determination

In order to constitute a joint principal offender, a subjective requirement is the intention of joint process and objective case, which requires the fact of execution of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. The intent of joint process is not sufficient to induce only the perception of another person’s criminal act but not to restrain it, and it is one of the two intent to commit a specific criminal act with a joint doctor, and it should be transferred to the execution of one’s own intention by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008).

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant A wired 1,616,00 won to the Agricultural Cooperative account of business operator N on June 23, 2009, and additionally installed a freezing storage of 1,616,000 won and an even one door more than the previous subsidies, but paid 300,000 won to N around July 2009. Meanwhile, in the case of Defendant B, Defendant B did not prove that it did not pay 2,50,000 won to N on June 24, 2009, and remitted 1,616,000 won to the previous subsidies, and additionally installed a cooling storage of 1,220,000 won to the previous subsidies, but there was no evidence to acknowledge that the remaining Defendants did not bear the above 2,500,000 won of n's own n's n's n's n's n's n's n's n's 's 's 's own share and 2.

(c) Public disclosure of the acquitted part;

Pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant A and B shall be published.

2. Joint offenses committed by Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, and I

A. Summary of the facts charged

In the same way as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the above Defendants, the sum of KRW 6,384,00 per victim Hongcheon-gun was obtained by deceit-gun 76,60,000.

B. Determination

As seen in the above paragraph (2) above, since fraud is not established with respect to the part of Defendant A and B's self-responsibility, the amount acquired by Defendant D, etc. is 63,840,000 won ( = 76,608,000 won - 12,768,000 won) with the exception of the part received by Defendant A and B from subsidies. Thus, the exceeding part is a case where there is no proof as to the crime, and thus, it should be acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the judgment of conviction was pronounced in relation to the crime, it shall not be pronounced again in the disposition.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Maduk-style