beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In this case, Article 22 of the Subsidy Act, which is a special law that is not a general law, applies to the subsidy granted by the Jeonnam branch of the instant C Group, constitutes an indirect subsidy under the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”). Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subsidy of this case, which found the Defendant guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 2 of the Subsidy Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles provides that the term "subsidies" under subparagraph 1 of this Act means subsidies (limited to subsidies granted by the State to local governments or granted with funds for facilities or operation of corporations, organizations, or individuals) granted by the State for the purpose of creating them or providing financial assistance to the affairs or projects conducted by any person other than the State, and charges (excluding charges under international treaties) and other benefits prescribed by Presidential Decree that are granted without receiving corresponding consideration. Thus, subsidies subject to the above Act shall be limited to subsidies granted by the State.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1769 Decided May 31, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health stand for the instant case, and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the instant subsidy granted to the Jeonyang-si, a local government, was granted KRW 7.1 million from Jeonyang-do and KRW 15 million from Jeonnam-do, which is a local government, and thus, cannot be deemed as an indirect subsidy granted by the State or a indirect subsidy granted with the subsidies. Therefore, the Defendant’s use of such subsidy for any purpose other than the prescribed purpose constitutes occupational embezzlement and there is no room to establish a crime of violating the Subsidy Act.