(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노897 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노897

사기등

Text

The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part), the defendants can fully recognize the facts that the defendants filed an application for government contributions to the above development task with the intention to obtain the deception from the beginning with respect to the fraud related to G development among the facts charged in the

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, suspended execution for a period of three years, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months, and two years suspended execution for a period of two years) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is deemed to be too unjustifiable and unfair

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine: (a) on March 2012, the Defendants received a subsidy of KRW 88,00,000,000 from the Government’s contribution in relation to G task; (b) on May 2012, C submitted the final outcome of the said G task to Daegu Metropolitan City; and (c) on the basis that the Daegu Metropolitan City made a successful decision, it can be recognized that the Defendants used the said subsidy of KRW 88,00,000,000,000 out of the said subsidy as a company’s operating fund, regardless of the development of the task by using the false tax invoice in the name of L around December 2012; (c) on the basis that the Defendants received a subsidy and used the said subsidy of KRW 97,000,000,000 as the company’s operating fund, there is room to view the Defendants’ arbitrary use of the subsidy as above.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.05.11 2017고단1672

-대구지방법원 2016.02.16 2015고단2804

-수원지방법원 2017.09.07 2016고단5101

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.06.26 2018고단1431

-인천지방법원 2016.02.15 2015고단6912