The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant at the request of E.

2) Although the Defendant issued a false service contract and a tax invoice in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant is the Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KIT; hereinafter “KIT”) using it.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable, as it did not know that government contributions are obtained through deception.

B. Defendant C1) Defendant I (hereinafter “I”) operated by the Defendant for misunderstanding of facts

) and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”).

A) A service agreement entered into between the parties is a normal contract. However, in the course of resolving the contractual relationship due to the I’s default, the service price received from F under the direction of E (hereinafter “O”) is an O Co., Ltd.

(2) The Defendant did not intend to acquire subsidies from E and KEIT, but did not have any intent to commit fraud. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

C. In full view of the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor (defendant A), mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A conspired with the E and acquired money from the KEIT as stated in the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below that F excluded the total amount of money received by the KEIT from the money acquired through deception amount corresponding to the actual service provided by D, or that there is no proof of a crime against the part acquired through deception amount, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of the amount acquired through deception amount. 2) The judgment of the court of unfair sentencing is too

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles.