The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant had the intent and ability to pay the cost of a person corresponding to 10 to 20% of the project cost, and did not pay the cost of goods or service, so the defendant did not receive the National Treasury subsidy by deceiving or unlawful means (the defendant is merely a violation of Article 41 of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies since he received a partial refund of the subsidy from the service provider and used it for other purposes without using it in the subsidy program). The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. Legal principles are acknowledged as guilty even if ① subsidies equivalent to the portion of the business entity (the amount actually paid to service providers) rather than the total amount of the subsidies received by the defendant, cannot be established as fraud, and only the remainder is established as fraud. ② National subsidies received as fraud are not the total amount of the national subsidies received by the defendant, but only the remainder of the project cost, excluding the expenses actually paid from the total project cost. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in calculating the amount of fraud and the amount of fraudulent receipt.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, deception as a requirement for fraud of relevant legal principles refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to abide by each other in the transactional relationship of property widely, and thus, are not necessarily required to be a false representation of important parts of a juristic act, and the basis for determining so that an actor may perform an act of disposal of property he/she wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.