The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is not the business of the Victim E-Foundation (hereinafter “victim Foundation”) but the Defendant’s business, so it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act interfered with the business of the Victim Foundation.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below reasoned that ① the victim foundation has operated the Ka PP in this case with the financial support of H, and the defendant should employ more than one disabled person in the above Ka P PP at the time, and shall not delegate or entrust its operation to other organizations or individuals. In the case of violation of the above provisions, it is determined that the reason for termination of the agreement and the reason for the recovery of subsidies was the case. ② The victim foundation notified the defendant in advance that the defendant should comply with the above terms and conditions of the agreement, ② the victim foundation notified the defendant in advance. ③ The victim foundation stated that the defendant should not sell alcoholic beverages in the Ka PP, and should not arbitrarily change internal facilities. ④ The representative stated the business registration certificate on the Ka PP, the representative of the "I" rehabilitation facility under the victim foundation, entered into a lease agreement with the victim foundation, ⑤ the defendant paid the defendant's wages related to the operation of the Ka PP, and the defendant paid the defendant's wages to the Ka PP.