The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant’s use of the subsidy balance to be returned following the termination of the project implementation period of the “D business” as business expenses of an incorporated association C (hereinafter “C”) was a lawful act constituting “use” under Article 22(3) of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Subsidy Act”).

B. The Defendant did not use the above subsidy balance for personal purposes, and the lower court determined otherwise, although there was no intent to commit the crime of embezzlement.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 22 of the Subsidy Act prohibits the use of subsidies for purposes other than their original purpose. However, Article 31(4) of the same Act provides that “where excess amount of subsidies is not returned pursuant to Article 31(4)” can be used for similar purposes. Meanwhile, Article 31(4) of the same Act provides that only the head of a local government can achieve the original purpose of the relevant subsidized project, and where the budget has been saved through his/her own efforts, the excess amount may not be returned, and it is apparent that C does not fall under the “head of a local government”, and the evaluation result of C’s “E” cannot be deemed as “unsatisfy”, and it cannot be deemed as a case where the event participant fails to execute subsidies due to weather conditions or external circumstances, and the balance of the subsidy of this case is believed to have been used for a business similar to C’s “E” business. Rather, the Defendant transfers the balance of the subsidy to the Defendant’s family account under the name of the Defendant bank (I).