A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants are not legal experts, ② Article 5-2 (hereinafter “instant implementation guidelines”) of the Guidelines for the Implementation of Job Creation Projects for Social Enterprises is merely administrative rules, ③ administrative agencies also provide subsidies without knowing that Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) are related agencies. In light of the fact that the Defendants are not legal experts, and thus, they are erroneous in the misapprehension of the law.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether there is a misapprehension of the legal principle or not provides that a person’s act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under the laws and subordinate statutes does not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding. It does not mean a mere case of the site of law. Generally, in a case where a crime is committed, but a mistake is recognized as being permitted by the laws and regulations in his own special circumstances, and such misunderstanding does not constitute a crime if there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1696, Jan. 25, 2002). Meanwhile, the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”).

(2) Article 40 of the Act provides that “A false application or any other unlawful means” as referred to in Article 40 refers to active and passive acts that may affect the decision-making on granting of subsidies by deceptive schemes or other means deemed unfair by social norms even though a person is unable to receive subsidies under the same Act through normal procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2500, Nov. 14, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit for the instant case; and ① Defendant A establishes F and Defendant B to each social enterprise.