The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant proceeded with “A program for the recovery of victims of sexual assault” according to the use of the subsidy, and the family program has not been properly used.

Even if a working-level G was conducted in violation of the defendant's direction, and the defendant's intention is not to use the subsidy for the purpose other than the original purpose.

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

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a counseling center for victims of sexual assault in the name of “C” in the name of “C” from B and the fourth level of official residence. A) A person who implements social welfare services in violation of the Social Welfare Services Act shall not use subsidies granted by the State or a local government for purposes other than its original purpose.

Nevertheless, around May 2, 2017, the Defendant received a subsidy of KRW 7.5 million from an official city with the name of implementing a “sexual assault victim treatment recovery program” for six adults of sexual assault victims. From September 2, 2017 to October 2017, the Defendant used the subsidy to “individual counseling and group counseling” program for trainees or activity who are not sexual assault victims.

Accordingly, the Defendant used the subsidy for the purpose other than its original purpose.

(b) A local government-subsidized project operator in violation of the Local Finance Act shall faithfully implement a local government-subsidized project with the care of a good manager in accordance with statutes, the details of the decision to grant local subsidies, or the disposition of the head of a local government

Nevertheless, from September 2017 to October 2017, the Defendant used 2,250,000 won as a local subsidy, among the subsidies paid by the above center under the same name as that described in paragraph (1), for other purposes as described in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the defendant is different from the local subsidy.