The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below guilty constitutes a violation of the law, which affected the judgment, and it constitutes a mistake of fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the sentence prescribed by the court of the court of the original instance (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below of the public prosecutor (the part on the fraud of employment maintenance subsidy in 2010) is a case where the mistake of fact affects the judgment.

In addition, the sentence determined by the court of the court below is so unfased that it is unfair.

Judgment

On August 31, 2016, with respect to the amendment of the indictment in the appellate trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment by adding or modifying some phrases of the facts charged on August 31, 2016. The court permitted the amendment.

Since the revised place cannot be considered as a major part, the subject of the judgment of this court is not substantially changed.

Since the subject of adjudication is substantially the same, it does not constitute “a case of destruction ex officio of the grounds affecting the conclusion of the judgment” under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In 2009, the defendant asserts that there is a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged of obtaining subsidies for employment maintenance.

The lower court found guilty on the basis of the macroscopic evidence and added the following reasons: The Defendant and the defense counsel omitted cash sales in relation to the omission of sales in 2009, but it was consistent with those reported to the tax office, which did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of employment maintenance subsidies by means of the purpose of complying with those reported to the tax office.

The argument is asserted.

However, among the requirements for the subsidies for employment maintenance of this case, the requirements for the reduction of sales have become an index to determine the aggravation of management, and the defendant has no meaning.

It is difficult to see it.

Although the defendant asserts that the tax invoice is issued later and the tax invoice is deducted from the monthly sales, the defendant will not issue the tax invoice later.