All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (i) Defendants (i) did not deceiving the third party as to the expansion of parking lots and the installation of heat lines among the installation of heat lines, which were subsidized by the third party at the representative council of the instant case (the council of occupants’ representatives at the time of third party apartment). As such, the Defendants did not deceiving the third party as to the construction cost.

【Unjustifiable sentencing sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 20 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts (the fraud in the original judgment), the defendants could fully recognize the facts charged of this case that the defendants acquired all subsidies from the victim third party in relation to the expansion of parking lot construction and the installation of heat lines.

The Defendants asserted that the two corporations were ordered separately, and that they actually paid all the expenses incurred in the installation of the heat line. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants actually paid the expenses incurred at the time of the request and receipt of the subsidies for the installation of the heat line.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is against the facts of the crime, the subsidies obtained by the defrauded by the instant fraud were fully paid as construction cost, and the Defendants did not obtain personal benefits by the instant crime, and as a result, the representative meeting of this case bears the burden of self-payment of 46 million won, etc., which are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the defraudation of subsidy is an act that obstructs appropriate and efficient input and management of tax-related subsidy, and the bid interference is an act that undermines fair competition and ultimate damage is ultimately a national.