All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. Around January 2014, through a misunderstanding of facts as to fraud or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A), the C fishing village fraternity was selected as a recipient of the autonomous fishery promotion project in 2014 (hereinafter “the instant subsidized project”), and the C fishing village fraternity decided to pay the subsidies of KRW 72 million (hereinafter “instant subsidies”).

The instant application for the instant subsidized project and the application for the payment of the instant subsidy on November 23, 2015 are a series of acts, and Defendant A only received subsidies that had already been expected to be paid to the C fishing Village fraternity. As such, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant defrauded the subsidies by deceiving a common city.

Defendant

A completed the construction of a simplified land-building cultivation building (hereinafter referred to as “instant facility”) as stated in the application filed at the time of the application for the instant subsidized project, and C fishing village fraternity owned the instant facility in conformity with the purpose of the instant subsidized project, and the Defendant received subsidies already established, and thus, the common market price did not have any property damage.

Defendant

A, prior to the filing of the application for the instant subsidy, the Defendant’s act of receiving the instant subsidy upon the application by mistake in law or consent of the victim, because the Defendant asked the public official in charge of the instant subsidy to speak that the instant facility is not a legal problem even if the facility is leased to I.

I is qualified to legally use the instant facility by joining the CAutonomous Management Community as an associate member through the resolution of the general meeting. Therefore, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have acquired the instant subsidy.

Defendant

A has leased the instant facilities, which are the collective ownership of C fishing village fraternity, to I through the resolution of the general meeting of the C fishing village fraternity. As such, the leased facilities of this case is legitimate, and C fishing village fraternity has increased the income of C fishing village fraternity since C fishing village fraternity received rent from I.