The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) was actually employed on a flexible basis by the Defendant; (b) but (c) employees only worked overtime due to the company’s circumstances.

Since the Defendant failed to properly understand the purpose of the “projects for supporting the creation of jobs on time-time basis” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant projects”) due to insufficient guidance by the public officials in charge, there was no intention to apply a false subsidy to the Defendant or to acquire it by fraud.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake of facts, and the lower court, under the title “determination of the Defendant’s assertion”, stated in detail the judgment, rejected the said assertion, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition to the various circumstances described by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the defendant was rejected once the application for subsidies on the ground that the actual working hours of the workers before the present case do not meet the business support standards of this case (see, e.g., evidence records 1293). However, the above workers applied for re-subsidies by preparing a false record of past work with a false statement as if the above workers worked for 6 hours a day without undergoing any particular review as to whether the above workers were eligible for the business support of this case, and ② even if the defendant did not know that the above action was not subject to criminal punishment because he did not properly hear the explanation of the purpose and purpose of the business of this case from the public officials in charge, this is merely merely a legal site and does not constitute a ground for excluding the defendant's intent.