The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A In four months of imprisonment, the defendant limited liability company B shall be punished by a fine of 4,00,000 won.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing)

A. In relation to job creation projects, mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: Defendant A is the subject of withdrawal from the company to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

A) Although there was a fact that an employee applied for a subsidy by means of preparing a document as if he had been on duty in a continuous manner, such as preparing a document, but the number of working days would not coincide with the actual working days and documents on the wind that is applied in the name of one person on a monthly basis, without complying with daily working days, in the event that the employee discontinues to work or is absent from work without notice, and there was no intention to commit fraud, since the employee was paid a subsidy to the short-term employee who actually performed his duties in proportion to the number of working days and used it as wages to be used for the original purpose. (ii) As such, Defendant A was paid KRW 9.68 million for the project development cost and used to purchase all the Defendant’s goods, the Defendants

No subsidy shall be deemed to have been granted in an unlawful manner.

B. Even if the Defendants were guilty of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (for the Defendant A: 5 months of imprisonment and suspension of execution, 1 year of imprisonment, and 5 million won in case of the Defendant Company) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the determination.

The judgment of the court below determined that the crime of fraud related to the F project and the violation of the Subsidy Management Act, the crime of fraud related to G, and the violation of the Subsidy Management Act as an inclusive crime.

However, in full view of the contents of each act of this case, damage legal interests, time interval, method of crime, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act of receiving the subsidy of this case constitutes a comprehensive crime of violation of the Act on Criminal Fraud and Subsidy Management for each person entitled to receive the subsidy of this case.

(The Subsidy Management Act has been amended several times and accordingly the applicable provisions of the Act have been changed).