The judgment below

The part against Defendant Hongsung-gun is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the appeal by the defendant Hong Sung-gun

A. (1) Article 17(1) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 12687, May 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Local Finance Act”) provides that matters necessary for the sound and efficient operation of subsidies under Article 17-2(5) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

According to delegation, Article 29(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25781, Nov. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act”) provides for matters necessary for the application, decision, use, etc. of subsidies or other public funds of local governments by municipal ordinances.

(2) Article 20 of the former Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies of Hongsung-gun (amended by Ordinance No. 21520, Dec. 30, 2014; hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) provides that “the head of the Gun may suspend the grant of a subsidy or order the return of all or part of the subsidy already granted if the person to whom the subsidy was granted falls under any of the following,” and that “when the subsidy was granted no possibility of success (Article 1) and “when the whole or part of the subsidy was suspended (Article 2)” provide that “the grounds for the suspension or return of the grant of a subsidy.”

B. Relevant issues and legal principles (1) The key issue is whether Article 20 of the instant Ordinance stipulating the return of subsidies exceeded the scope of delegation under Article 29(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Finance Act.

(2) When a statute delegates a specific matter to a municipal ordinance, the legislative purpose and provisions of the pertinent statute are to determine whether the municipal ordinance complies with the limits of delegation.