The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

A. With respect to the violation of the Act on Fraud and Subsidy Management (Defendant), ① the project for modernization of livestock facilities in 2012 and 2013 was the same project for the same livestock shed [1290.85 square meters (hereinafter “the instant livestock shed”) located in Chungcheongnam-gun budget group] from the Defendant’s standpoint, and ② the area of the instant livestock shed is 1290.85 square meters in size as of August 29, 2012, the instant livestock shed was included in the subsidization method (30% of subsidies, loans 50% of loans, and 20% of self-paid) at the time of application for the alteration of the housing facilities modernization project in 2012. However, the Defendant applied for the alteration to the existing subsidization method (including a loan and a person who had obtained approval for 80% of loans, contributions, and 20% of self-paid contributions) due to a mistake by a public official in charge, etc.

In full view of the following facts: (a) renounced the business of modernization of livestock facilities in 2012 and filed a new application for the business of modernization of livestock facilities in 2013 (hereinafter “the instant subsidized project”); and (c) the Defendant’s total cost of construction incurred in relation to the instant stable construction was KRW 453,084,426; (b) the lower court committed a criminal intent against the Defendant to commit fraud or to receive subsidies, taking into account only the cost incurred after June 20, 2013.

or other improper means, such as deception, false application, or other improper means, shall not be deemed to exist.

Even though it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Improper sentencing (a pair of punishment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court made a detailed determination as to the Defendant’s assertion in the item “determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel” of the