The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 7,000,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged that the Defendants submitted to the Korea Institute for Industrial Technology Promotion of Victims an application for a business plan and a grant for reliability, which contain the contents that the Defendants would improve the symptoms of flame emissions in collusion with P, D, E, etc., even though the problems, such as the increase of flames of gas gas and gas cohesion products, have already been improved, and obtained a grant for reliability from the above victims and acquired it by fraud.

In this regard, the existing problems have not been improved at the time of the case, and the state of improvement has been improved.

Even if the Defendants were not in charge of manufacturing products, they did not know of the improvement.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendants guilty on the basis of the statements of E without credibility, and found them guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts.

2) Although the Defendants did not have been involved in the instant crime, the lower court recognized the Defendants as a principal offender in the crime of fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts in this regard.

B. The Korea Industrial Technology Promotion Agency, which is named as the victim of the judgment of the court below by misunderstanding the legal principles, cannot be deceiving as an organization composed of the authorities in the relevant field, and as it is not a natural person, the court below recognized the Korea Industrial Technology Promotion Agency as the network, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

(c)

Even if the sentencing is found guilty against the Defendants, the principal offender of the instant fraud was the general manager of RR Co., Ltd. who applied for a reliable subsidy, and was the higher-ranking position in the interest of the lender of the said company

D In light of the fact that the defendant is a person D, the court below's sentence against the defendant (the defendant A is punished by imprisonment.