The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Mano-day established by the Defendant by mistake of fact is an agriculture and is not a tourism, and the Defendant did not have violated the local financial law by receiving subsidies by false or other unlawful means.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant applied for the installation cost of the agricultural Mono Day and received local subsidies from H even though the Defendant did not think that he would not use it for agriculture, such as the cultivation of Mano-No-Ga, by installing the Mono Day.

① On February 27, 2015, the Defendant entered the application form in “I” as “M, N,O”, and cultivated crops,” “Ma-Ga,” and “4,374 square meters, 682 square meters, 2,309 square meters,” and filed an application with the H warden for a change in the amount of subsidies for the installation of a leisure boat for agricultural use. The said three lots of land, such as M, etc., were very sloped and miscellaneous, making it difficult for the Defendant to install a leisure boat, and was aware at the time of the application.

② The Defendant requested B to change the location of the land A, QY, Y, AR, AS, ATS, AT, and AU due to the impossibility of installing three copies of the above M, etc., which were originally applied for, and upon approval of H, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant installed a Mono-day on the land above, with the approval of H.

However, the Manoday established by the Defendant was set up over land, such as AD, S, T, U,V, and W, in excess of the above land notified to B, and this was that the Defendant created an experience village for tourism use.

X is connected to the coast.

③ According to the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement, the Defendant was not for agricultural purposes, such as the cultivation of MaMa, QY, AR, AR, AS,T, and AU land in around August 28, 2015.