Therefore, the subsidy of this case can be arbitrarily used by the defendant regardless of its use.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On December 3, 2013, the lower court found the Defendant’s use of the subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose, comprehensively taking into account the following facts: (a) the Defendant received the instant subsidy from the Agricultural Cooperative Account (G; hereinafter “Defendant Account”) under the Defendant’s name on December 3, 2013; (b) the remainder was KRW 143,145,870 at that time; (c) around 07:58 and around 07:59 on December 4, 2013, the next day paid KRW 140,000,000 as an interest-based loan, not E-related construction cost; and (d) as above, there was no money deposited in the Defendant’s account between the payment of the State subsidy and the payment of the purchase price of pathology after deposit.

B. The subsidy of this case, which is determined on the basis of the deliberation of this case, is to settle the accounts of the accrued construction cost to each construction enterprise in accordance with the contents of the subsidy program called the new construction of the head of the Yangyang

I see that it is.

In this regard, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, along with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, were newly constructed around November 19, 2013 by the head of the Yangyang, which was the Defendant, but did not pay a considerable portion of the agreed construction cost to each construction company. The Defendant paid the remainder of the construction cost with the amount loaned by I, the father of the Defendant, on January 14, 2014. As such, in light of the fact that the amount paid to each of the above businesses after January 14, 2014 exceeds the amount of the instant subsidy, the Defendant was a soldier who was irrelevant to the subsidized business immediately after receiving the said subsidy.