The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s violation of the Commercial Act or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of disguised payment, as he is not a person holding the status under Article 622(1) of the Commercial Act.

B) In light of the fact that there is no municipal ordinance or regulation in the Yan City that requires the self-payment in cash, the submission of a deposit balance certificate is a convenience provision, and the submission of a deposit balance certificate does not necessarily require the implementation of a project by securing cash when applying for the grant of a subsidy, etc., the submission of a deposit balance certificate by a bond business entity does not constitute the receipt of a subsidy by false application or other unlawful means. In addition, even if the applicant fails to meet his/her own ability, the submission of a deposit balance certificate does not constitute the receipt of a subsidy by means of false application or other unlawful means. Furthermore, even if the applicant fails to meet his/her own ability, it is not excluded from the subject to examination, but the allocation of the self-bearing capacity becomes zero. Since D is selected as a business entity with higher scores than the competitor and is selected as a business entity,

Even if the act of deception constitutes a fraudulent act, according to the fact that the procedures for the selection of subsidy project targets and the procedures for the payment of subsidies are separate procedures, and that D did not submit a false deposit balance certificate at the time of applying for the grant of subsidies, there is no causation between the act of deception and the act

(2) The Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the price at the time of delivery of the original laver from the Victim NFFFF, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intention to acquire the price by deception.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service, which is unreasonable.

(b)a prosecutor;