1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A regarding the guilty of Defendant A and perjury.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts as to the crime of attempted fraud and the crime of perjury (the crime of attempted fraud No. 1 and No. 2 in the original judgment), Defendant A lent KRW 55,40,00 to Victim G as the cost of packing paper production, and Defendant A appeared and made a statement in the relevant criminal trial. Therefore, there is no fact that Defendant A instigated Defendant A to provide perjury along with the relevant criminal trial. Therefore, there is no fact that Defendant A has instigated Defendant A to provide a perjury. Nevertheless, due to the submission of the fabricated evidence or a biased investigation, Defendant A’s demand for a loan was dismissed, and Defendant A was not guilty of G fraud. 2) misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the crime of attempted fraud and occupational embezzlement (the crime of embezzlement No. 3 in the original judgment) and the crime of attempted to commit fraud and occupational embezzlement (hereinafter “M”).

In addition, since participants in the social contribution job support project have actually performed public performances, it cannot be recognized that they have committed fraud, and subsidies provided by the BA foundation are collected only for use in the operating cost of M in accordance with the initial agreement, since those provided to W and R, which are the employees of M, have been recovered from the original agreement. Therefore, the intention of illegal acquisition cannot be recognized.

In addition, Article 23 of the Social Enterprise Promotion Act prohibits criminal punishment in this case, so it is reasonable that the defendant is not subject to criminal punishment due to this case in light of the purpose of legislation.

B. Although Defendant C has prepared and submitted a subsidy application differently from the fact that Defendant C submitted the fact, since not only used the subsidy for a social contribution-making support project for M’s cultural business but also the fact that O et al. actually performed social contribution activities, the criminal intent of defraudation cannot be recognized. The subsidy granted by the BA foundation was paid to the employees receiving the benefit in M, and thus the cause for double payment occurred.