The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 3,00,000 won, and a fine of 10,000,000 won, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s act stated in the facts charged in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is deemed to have performed his duties with the intent of performing his duties, but it is deemed to have neglected his duties due to excessive workloads or loss of exploitation, and does not constitute abandonment of his duties to the extent that the punishment under the Criminal Act is required.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant only used a means that may be deemed to lack somewhat justifiable legitimacy in a business eligible to receive local subsidies, and there is no intention to commit a violation of local financial law or a crime of fraud.

Defendant was not recruited with A.

2) The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine

A. In the crime of abandonment of duties stipulated in Article 122 of the Criminal Act, the term “when a public official neglects his/her duties” is not established in all cases where a public official neglects his/her duties in good faith by law and regulations, but is likely to impair the function of the State and cause damage to the people, such as the renunciation of work without permission and the waiver of duties.

Therefore, the establishment of a crime of abandonment of duties is not recognized solely on the fact that the performance of duties is deemed illegal if a public official performs his/her duties with the intent of performing his/her duties. It does not constitute a crime of abandonment of duties even if a public official fails to faithfully perform his/her duties or fails to perform his/her duties formally or negligently due to negligence, negligence, care, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do229, Apr. 10, 2014). (b) In addition to the foregoing legal principles, the lower court and the lower court.