The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

For the grounds of appeal in this case, according to the relevant provisions of the Trucking Transport Business Act, which are the laws and regulations that serve as the basis of the payment of the oil subsidy in this case, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs must revoke the defendant's license for trucking transport business under the Road Traffic Act, and may order the cancellation or suspension of the permission for trucking transport business if the person whose license for trucking transport business was revoked has caused the person whose license for trucking transport business was revoked to transport the cargo, and the use of the truck is suspended if there is a disposition of cancellation of the permission for trucking transport business as above, and the defendant's act of requesting oil subsidies and receiving the oil subsidy after concealing the cancellation of the driver's license was filed with the oil subsidy and received the oil subsidy. Thus, the above act constitutes affirmative and passive act which is recognized as unfair under the law, and which may affect the decision-making on the grant of the subsidy. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies and Management of Subsidies, and by thoroughly examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.