All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Public Prosecutor’s Act on the Management of Subsidies by misunderstanding the legal principles on the violation of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Financial Assistance Act”) includes a person who manages and operates funds established under the Acts set out in attached Table 2 of the National Financial Assistance Act, and the Acts set out in attached Table 2 of the above National Financial Act include industrial technology innovation promotion.

However, according to the agreement entered into between the defendant and the Small and Medium Business Administration, it can be known that the money paid by the Small and Medium Business Administration to the defendant is based on the Technology Innovation Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises, and Articles 5 (1) and 14 (1) of the above Act of Technology Innovation Promotion of Small and Medium Enterprises invokes the Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act concerning the establishment of plans to promote technological innovation of small and medium enterprises and the grant of certain subsidies, etc., and Article 15 of the above agreement also provides for industrial technology innovation promotion in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above money was the contribution determined by the Act on the Promotion of Technology Innovation of Small and Medium Enterprises and found not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on subsidies

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged while clearly explaining the grounds for determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the money paid by the Small and Medium Business Administration to Defendant A is not a subsidy prescribed in the Subsidy Act.