logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.02.13 2019노2424
보조금관리에관한법률위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the president of the Incheon building and the D Child Care Center located in the 1st floor of the C-dong (hereinafter “Child Care Center”).

Although a subsidized business operator does not use subsidies for other purposes, the Defendant purchased a subsidy equivalent to 2,522,950 won in the consumer sale price (hereinafter “instant connection”) from the State to use the subsidies for social services, such as teaching materials necessary for education of children E-care centers (3 to 5 years of age), infant bridge, and other materials necessary for education, and used them for other purposes.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant purchased the connection North Korea as stated in the facts charged with the operation subsidy and the Defendant intentionally used the subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) In connection with the use of the social process subsidy, any restriction is imposed on the repayment of loans or the use of expenses unrelated to the social process, such as meal expenses, and no different procedures for the execution of subsidies or restrictions on the use of teaching materials or teaching equipment purchased or teaching equipment, etc.

② On November 2017, the Defendant was given advice to the effect that he/she becomes a private road with a subsidy remaining from F who is in charge of accounting management of the instant childcare center, and it appears that he/she purchased the instant beer North Korea in line with the amount of the subsidy.

③ The fact that the Defendant was in charge of E-learning at the time of enforcing the N-L program subsidy is confirmed as necessary.

G suggested the purchase of lapt because the private lapt was broken down around that time.

④ The instant case.

arrow