A. In light of the legal principles and the circumstances leading up to the crime, such as there was no profit gained from the crime of this case, the Defendant did not intend to acquire the subsidy by deception, such as the charge.

Nevertheless, as the court below found the defendant guilty, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 40 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of misunderstanding, any property interest is not limited to the interests that can be calculated on a calculated basis (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1095, Jul. 25, 1997). If economic value can be evaluated as having been economic value, it shall be included in property interest, which is the object of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do282, Sept. 27, 2012). Various circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated. In particular, as the court below stated, the defendant sought economic interest, such as increasing the sales of oil by inducing the borrower through the crime of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no benefit to the defendant. Although the defendant could not be said that there is no benefit to the borrower, such as granting the borrower the main coophone or storage certificate equivalent to the excessive amount of money paid by the defendant.

Even if it is not only to distribute the internal profit of the accomplice, but it does not affect the establishment requirements of the crime, including intentional intent, and it also suggested that the borrower, who is the accomplice, first of all, was the defendant to commit the crime of defraudation of subsidies.

Even if so agreed, if the defendant committed the crime together, the defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime.

shall be deemed to be.