The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Act on Fraud and Subsidy Management, even though the act of deception infringes on the national or public legal interests, if it can be assessed at the same time as infringing on property rights which are the protection of fraud under the Criminal Act, fraud may be established unless the relevant administrative laws and regulations separately provide for punishment corresponding to fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7303, Nov. 27, 2008). Article 40 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016) provides that "the act of receiving subsidies by false or other unlawful means is required to constitute "the act of obtaining subsidies" and "the other party has an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition and the other party has an intention to do so," and at the same time, it is a crime separate from fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do20085, Dec. 24, 200).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on deception, mistake, damage legal interests, and statutoryism in fraud.

2. The offering of a bribe.