(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.22 2019노284

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.22 2019노284

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The prosecutor of the scope of the trial at this court filed a false application for the cost of improving working environment (subsidies) with the Defendant, even though the Defendant had a child care teacher worked for 60 hours a day, and filed a public prosecution for the following facts: (a) fraud, violation of the Infant Care Act, and violation of the Subsidy Management Act with the purport that the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 8,488,00 from the Republic of Korea in the name of cost of improving working environment, and received a subsidy by false application or other unlawful means; and (b) the lower court acquitted all the charges of this case.

A prosecutor appealed from the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts, but in the statement of grounds of appeal, only detailed reasons were stated as follows: “The part of KRW 220,000 (No. 23,24 attached to the judgment of the first instance court) received respectively as the cost of improving the working environment around February 2017 and around March 2017.”

Therefore, the remainder, other than the above-mentioned cost of improving the working environment around February 2017 and March 2017, was excluded from the subject of the judgment of this court on the ground that there was no other matters to be determined ex officio and ex officio.

Ultimately, the scope of this court’s adjudication is limited to the fraud, the violation of the Infant Care Act, and the violation of the Subsidy Management Act concerning “the part of KRW 220,000 (No. 23,24 attached to the original judgment No. 23, No. 24) of each of the 220,00 won received by childcare teachers D as working environment improvement costs around February 2017 and March 2017.

2. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, even if it is recognized that D only worked for six hours a day from January 2017 to February 2017 and did not work for eight hours, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, which erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The Defendant, ex officio, is a “Cafter-school childcare center” located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

참조조문

-영유아보육법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.02.04 2019고단8880

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2019.01.08 2018고단374

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2018고정1312

-인천지방법원 2019.01.25 2018고단8069

-인천지방법원 2014.02.20 2013고정4736