All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendants A, B, and C were practically divided into a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part on violation of the Act on Fraud and Subsidy Management), and the separated stable area is subject to the grant of the subsidy pursuant to the subsidized project of this case (hereinafter “the subsidy of this case”), the Defendants cannot be deemed to have received the subsidy of this case by deception, false application, or other unlawful means in collusion with Defendant D, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (ten months of imprisonment, two years of probation, community service, Defendant B, and C respectively, six months of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, community service, Defendant D: six months of imprisonment, six months of suspended execution, and two years of suspended execution) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, but the lower court rejected all the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed in the reasoning of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

1) Defendant A, B, and C claims that their livestock pens were practically divided, but at the time of police investigation, Defendant A’s management is based on the purport that “i.e., Defendant A was formally divided into livestock penss to receive the instant subsidy” [i.e., Defendant A was divided into livestock penss after hearing horses that “(the size of livestock shed is not the subject of the instant subsidy program) and formally divided livestock penss,” and Defendant B did not actually transfer or manage the separated livestock sheds.