beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, one of 120 hours of community service order, defendant C: three months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following points on Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing are favorable to Defendant A.
Defendant
A reflects his mistake in depth, returns illegally received subsidies, and there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind of criminal record or fine.
On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.
The act of improper receipt of subsidies, such as the crime of this case, is not likely to undermine the soundness of the subsidy project and ultimately lead to the failure of the national finance.
The amount of subsidies illegally received is about KRW 50 million.
In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the balance with the sentencing against Co-Defendant B, who is the head of the child care center of this case, the background of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age, character and conduct of the above defendant, and the environment, it is not recognized that the sentence against the defendant A is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant A's assertion is groundless
B. The purpose of the Infant Care Act is to protect the mental and physical health of infants and provide sound education to Defendant C on the assertion of unfair sentencing. The instant crime is a dangerous act in which childcare centers may be operated in bad faith against the intent of the Infant Care Act, and the possibility of criticism on the relevant crime cannot be considered to be light.
However, Defendant C is against his mistake, the primary offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and Defendant C is an office worker employed by Defendant A and has received monthly salary, and it is difficult to see that Defendant C led the instant crime, the subsidy in question was returned, and the Defendant C was returned.