All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on each of the charges dismissed in the lower judgment, which is sufficiently specified in the facts charged in light of the following circumstances, even if the date of application, amount, and date of payment is not indicated

may be seen.

The defendant prepares a false application for subsidies and specifies the training courses and training period for which the defendant has granted subsidies, the name of the business operator participating in the training, the management number of the place of business, the representative, the trainee, etc.

The date of the subsidy payment can be estimated to be immediately after the training period, and the total amount of the subsidy payment is specified.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals that the facts charged were specified on the grounds that the date of application for subsidies, the amount paid, and the date of payment are not

Therefore, it is judged that the procedure of prosecution is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, and the prosecution was dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

2) The Defendant, who judged the unfair argument of sentencing, has gained substantial benefits from all the amount acquired by deceit, such as using part of the amount acquired by the Defendant to purchase the teaching materials, materials, etc. in fact.

It is difficult to see that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine, and that the defendant deposited 10 million won, which is a part of the amount of damage in the trial of the party, is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the following points are the same.