logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.06.20 2013노449
보조금관리에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to Defendant B and E, Defendant B shall pay the Defendant E’s own contributions in return for the payment of the expenses incurred in installing the plastic house in return, and Defendant E shall calculate the cost of the plastic house in return for the payment of the subsidies, and Defendant B may in collusion with the above Defendants to receive the subsidies by an illegal means in the Republic of Korea as if the subsidies were actually paid to Defendant B, despite the fact that the above Defendants conspired to submit the most remittance table as if the subsidies were actually paid to Defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by adversely affecting the conclusion

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to Defendant B and G, Defendant B shall pay the Defendant G’s own contributions in return for the payment thereof, and calculates the cost of plastic house installation in return, and Defendant G may in collusion with the above Defendants by submitting the most advanced remittance table as if Defendant B applied for subsidies to Masung-gun and actually paid the funds to Defendant B. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that there was no proof of a crime, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that Defendant B is a person operating “N”, who is an enterprise installing agricultural facilities, such as a plastic greenhouse and a stoke, located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan GovernmentO, and Defendant E and G is engaged in each agriculture.

1 The Defendants B and E are in collusion with the Defendants in order to conduct the high quality pago production facility business in 2010 and the export farmers' facility in 2010.

arrow