beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant, who is not a normal lawsuit, only claims insurance money to the damaged insurance company after receiving a diagnosis from a veterinarian E with respect to a non-permanent action, not a normal lawsuit, and did not deceiving the damaged insurance company as stated in this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the fact-finding 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who operates a stock farm in Pyeongtaek-si C, was aware of the acquisition of livestock disaster insurance proceeds operated with a government subsidy of 50%.
On May 19, 2012, the Defendant: (a) made a false contract that he/she sold KRW 100,00 to F, a seller when he/she ships a normal cattle owned by the Defendant (M) on May 19, 2012; (b) received a false diagnosis of KRW 50,000,000; (c) made a false diagnosis of KRW 50,000,000,000, stating that a veterinarian E is an injury for the cause of insurance payment; and (d) prepared three copies of the photograph of the cattle that he/she sits up to be seen as a non-permanent cattle, and submitted them to the damaged insurance company B on March 5, 2012; and (e) received KRW 2,036,160 from the damaged insurance company on March 16, 2012; and (e) acquired KRW 1823,259,250,000, as shown in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “crime”).
2) On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that a crime of fraud is established on the grounds that the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired insurance proceeds by receiving a false diagnosis from E in a normal lawsuit as stated in this part of the facts charged, by claiming insurance proceeds to the damaged insurance company.
3) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the deliberation by the party, the Defendant deceiving the damaged insurance company as stated in this part of the facts charged.