1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “F’s head director B, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant D, etc. received subsidies in excess of the amount of subsidies received by Defendant D for the purpose of meal service support projects under the name of food materials and collected the amount of money equivalent to 1/2 through 1/3 from among them to be returned to Defendant D, and used them for the short operating expenses of F; ① Defendant B, and Defendant D, etc. five times from May 10, 2012 to July 9, 2012; ② Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D et al. received subsidies in the name of 18,50,000 won from around 30 to January 16, 2013; and ④ Defendant D et al. used subsidies in the name of 30,500,000 won over 12 times from around 20, 2012 to around 16, 2013; and ③ Defendant D, Defendant 2, and 3.5.

“” is:

As to this, the court below held that F used the subsidy in paying food materials for its original purpose, as long as F used to pay food materials according to the price reasonably established for the quantity of food materials actually supplied, F used the subsidy in this case for its original purpose.

It is reasonable to see that Defendant D paid the operating income to be acquired by himself among the purchase price of the food materials of this case to F and used it as operating expenses.

The judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant D guilty of the instant facts charged was reversed and acquitted on the ground that the amount owned by Defendant D was merely a donation to F.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. The use of funds by clients for purposes other than for a limited purpose is derived from personal purposes, as well as from the entrustment of funds, which are strictly limited for purposes.