A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) Defendant A, in fact, entered into a contract for construction of livestock pens facilities in this case with Defendant B, and Defendant B completed the said construction work. However, Defendant B, his father, who was the above-mentioned property, donated the above construction work to Defendant A, and Defendant A merely received a refund of the construction cost, cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants made false transaction details in order to prove the fact that the Defendants were paid the construction cost, and thus, the Defendants did not receive subsidies by false application or other unlawful means.

2) Defendant B did not have any legal knowledge about the Framework Act on the Construction Industry; Defendant B started construction work only after inquiring the government office about whether it is possible to do so; Defendant B started construction work; Defendant B did not violate the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

there is a good reason to believe that there is a mistake

Therefore, the defendant B's crime of this part is by mistake of the law under Article 16 of the Criminal Code.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: one year and four months of imprisonment; two years of probation; two years of community service order; Defendant B: one year of imprisonment; two years of probation; two years of probation; and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Part 1 concerning the Defendants’ fraud and violation of the Subsidy Management Act) The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has to be followed by each other in the transactional relationship of property, and thus has a duty of loyalty and good faith.