2. The Defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect his mistake in the first instance trial.

The creation and new construction of cultural center promoted by the defendant with subsidies have been done normally.

All parts used as restaurants among buildings of the cultural center have been restored to their original state.

The defendant seems to have worked as a chief executive officer of the Q2 Committee and R R agricultural partnership director and made efforts for the success of the business.

The Defendant is an initial offender who has no criminal history.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the court below also rendered a sentence in consideration of such favorable circumstances, and there is no new change in circumstances to be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

The crime of defraudation of subsidies, such as this case, is likely to be criticized in that the finances of the State or local governments are aggravated, thereby increasing the tax burden of the people as well as ultimately increasing the tax burden of the people, and reducing the opportunity of a third party in good faith who could have been reasonably able to receive subsidies.

The subsidy obtained by the defendant has reached KRW 630,7340,000 and among them, the national subsidy reaches KRW 44,6240,000.

However, no damage has been restored.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and is not deemed unfair. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.