A. Defendant C and D Co., Ltd.’s appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts revealed that P and R, who was a staff member of the chamber of commerce and industry at the time, were eligible to employ M and N, and that M and N are not eligible to receive youth internship assistance even if M and N are employed as a four-party employment insurance. Nevertheless, the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts as to the Defendants. 2) Since Defendant D Co., Ltd is a business entity subject to youth employment internship, it constitutes a case where the amount of legitimate amount of money is paid for the business, etc. eligible to receive subsidies, and this case is not a crime.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant C: fine of one million won, and fine of five hundred thousand won for Defendant D Co., Ltd.) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor’s appeal by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of one million won, fine of one million won for Defendant B Co., Ltd: fine of one million won, fine of one million won for Defendant C; and fine of one million won for Defendant D Co., Ltd.: fine of five million won for Defendant D Co., Ltd. is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C and D Co., Ltd.’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts on Defendant C and D Co., Ltd.’s assertion of this part constitutes the assertion that Defendant C and D Co., Ltd.’s application for M and N as an intern and the receipt of subsidies is not a crime under law. As such, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one’s act did not constitute a crime under law shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding. It is not just a legal site, but a general crime is generally a crime, but it is erroneous that it does not constitute a crime that is permitted under law in its special circumstances.