logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2016노3119
사기
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Defendant A (the original criminal facts paragraph 2) did not have conspired with B, and in fact, Defendant A did not have acquired agricultural materials from the agricultural materials materials and was equipped with facilities for the subsidy support project, and thus, the requirements for self-responsibility should be deemed to have been satisfied. Furthermore, the Defendant submitted a false tax invoice received from the agricultural materials upon the request of B, which was submitted by the head of Sung-ju Gun, and paid subsidies through the examination and inspection, and the Defendant used most of the subsidies for the subsidy support project, and thus, the crime of fraud cannot be deemed to be established. 2) Defendant B did not intend to promptly complete the subsidy program, but did not have any intent to commit fraud.

A is entitled to receive a subsidy by completing the construction of the Hasber mushroom cultivation facility in excess of the self-paid cost, and completing the construction of the Hasber 7 Hascul cultivation facility, which is a subsidy support project. Thus, even if some of the false details are false in the tax invoice, etc. submitted by A, it shall not be deemed to be a fraudulent act or to have

B. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing (the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for August and the suspended sentence for June) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s determination ① in the case of Defendant A, even though the tax invoice, etc. was found to have been issued falsely at the request of Defendant B, it is sufficient to recognize it as a co-principal since it received the subsidy, etc.

In addition, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for self-responsibility because it merely acquired agricultural materials from the perspective of agricultural materials, and Defendant A received subsidies by submitting a false tax invoice, etc. even though he did not have the ability to bear the burden.

arrow