logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.09.04 2014노229
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The court below dismissed all the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act against each worker except AF, AG, and AH among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted each of the remaining facts charged except the dismissed part.

Since only the Defendant appealed on the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below was separated and confirmed in excess of the period of appeal, and was excluded from the scope of the judgment of the court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In concluding an additional agreement with the Defendant on December 31, 2012, L group permitted L group to use some of the subsidies for the establishment of the M Welfare Education Center (hereinafter “the second project of this case”) on the condition that at the same time the completion of a sanatorium for the elderly under the K Welfare Center development project (hereinafter “the first project of this case”) and at the same time the mortgage equivalent to KRW 4.2 billion was created.

The Defendant did not use the second project subsidy in the instant case without the consent of LA, and thus cannot be viewed as using the subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the permission for use of subsidies for non-purpose purposes or by misapprehending the purpose of use of subsidies, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

[Defendant revoked the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the first trial date.]

The Defendant already completed the first project of this case by faithfully carrying out the instant 1 and 2 projects, and the Defendant initially carried out construction work corresponding to the subsidies granted.

arrow