The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, H, and I’s respective sentences of the lower court (one and half years of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; two years of probation and community service work; 120 hours in one year and six months of imprisonment; and two years of probation in six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and Defendant G and A set the total construction cost of the instant subsidized project at KRW 2 billion in the Swin-gun, and accordingly, Defendant G and A set the total construction cost of the instant subsidized project at KRW 2 billion in the total construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

AC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AC”) was concluded, but thereafter.

) As the unit price or ES (A/S) did not perform part of the construction work, AC determines the construction cost to be actually performed as KRW 1,532,216,00. The remainder of the construction work that AC did not perform among the construction work in the instant case was directly executed by Defendant G. The construction cost of the portion directly operated by Defendant G exceeds KRW 751,970,420, even if it is limited to the construction work included in the project plan of the instant subsidized project, the construction cost of the portion directly operated by Defendant G exceeds KRW 600,000.

In addition, Defendant G paid KRW 298,350,00, or KRW 57,00,00 which the said Defendant received from Defendant G on December 29, 2010, or KRW 57,00,00, which was received on September 2, 2011, to disguise its own contributions, not the amount returned, but the amount that the said Defendant paid to AC all of its own contributions for the instant subsidized projects, but received a refund of the difference in the process of settling the construction cost for the portion directly constructed by the said Defendant and the portion actually constructed by AC.

As above, Defendant G cannot be deemed to have fraudulently obtained subsidies by deceiving the State or Spanish military, and Defendant G also received a tax invoice on the total amount of construction costs from Defendant G.