A. (1) In relation to the instant fraud, Defendant 1 had the intent and ability to carry out the instant task because the technical ability, human resources, and financial resources to carry out the instant task were sufficient. However, since the management has deteriorated during the task and some of the subsidies have been used as human resources for researchers, there is no intention to obtain fraud, and even if it is recognized as the criminal intent to obtain fraud, the money that the Defendant paid to the joint project proprietor should be excluded from the amount of fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts on (i) the defendant's assertion of fraud as to the defendant's assertion of fraud is identical to the reasons for appeal on this part in the court below's judgment, and the court below stated in detail the defendant's assertion and its decision in the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion." In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, a thorough examination is justified, and the defendant's remaining amount (Evidence No. 2110 of the evidence record), 22,80 million won of the subsidy granted in relation to E telegrams, 21,313,980 of the remainder (Evidence No. 2108 of the evidence record), 90 million won of the subsidy granted in relation to F robot (Evidence No. 2111 of the evidence record), and 140 billion won of the subsidy granted in relation to F robot, regardless of the amount of the annual use of the subsidy granted in cash and the annual use of the subsidy (Evidence No. 214 of the evidence record).