Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and for six months, for each of the defendants B.

except that this shall not apply.

2. The sum of the indirect subsidies that Defendant A received by the Defendants on the lead of the judgment of the lower court is not large, and the criminal nature of the instant crime is not good, such as the State’s policy funds for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises are disbursed in vain.

However, most of the subsidies the Defendants received are deemed to have been used as development costs or corporate operation expenses, etc., the parts related to E were fully repaid among the indirect subsidies received, and the amount of damage was recovered due to repayment of KRW 35 million, Defendant A should take into account the equity with the case of the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act in the case of Defendant A, and Defendant B did not have profit from the actual acquisition of most of the indirect subsidies received under his name to Defendant A who led the crime of this case, and the portion related to Defendant B is deemed to have been repaid with a large amount of the above indirect subsidies, as well as other factors such as age, character, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable, and the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is somewhat inappropriate.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendants' appeal in conclusion is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled again as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of the judgment below. Thus, Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.