A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant’s use of subsidies as stated in the judgment of the court below does not constitute use of subsidies for purposes other than the original purpose, and Defendant had the intent of unlawful acquisition at the time.

Although the court below was unable to make a judgment, the court below convicted the defendant.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2) As stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant’s act of removing subsidies as stated in the lower judgment constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant, despite the excluding the illegality thereof.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same as the argument of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles at the lower court, but the lower court rejected each of the Defendant’s respective arguments by explaining the detailed reasons from No. 3 18 to No. 6 5 of the lower judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. As to the illegal assertion of sentencing, the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant, except for those who were sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act around around 1998.

On the other hand, although the Defendant acknowledged facts related to the instant crime, it does not seem to seriously reflect his/her own mistake, and the fact that the amount of embezzlement ( approximately KRW 29 million) caused by the instant crime is not certain is disadvantageous to the Defendant.