beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles paid the cost of self-payment to Q. Defendant C and F were partially refunded, but Defendant C and F did not actually pay the cost of self-payment. However, Defendant G dealt with the O roof construction, floor construction, electrical construction, etc. to be installed by Q in lieu of the cost of self-payment. Defendant G did not know whether it would pay the cost of self-payment. Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed any deceitful act in receiving the subsidy.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion on the ex officio determination due to changes in indictment, the Prosecutor received KRW 76,608,000 from the last sentence of paragraph (3) of the indictment as a subsidy and acquired it as a result of the last sentence of paragraph (3) of the indictment.
The part of the “ 76,608,00 won was provided as subsidies.” Accordingly, Defendant I, Q and Q conspired 6,384,000 won, Q and P, and 6,384,00 won, Q and Q in collusion 6,384,00 won, Q and R 6,384,000 won, Defendant F and Q in collusion 6,384,000 won, and 6,384,000 won, G and Q in collusion 6,384,00 won, and 6,384,000 won, and Q and Q were provided as subsidies, and the part of the lower judgment was modified by conspiracy 6,384,00 won, Q and Q and Q 6,384,00 won, Q and Q 6,384,384,00 won, Q and Q 6,384,00 won, and the part of the lower judgment on the amendment was modified to the indictment.”
However, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.