The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty as to the forgery of private documents and the exercise of the above investigation documents in the name of D, E, and F among the facts charged in this case, and found the defendant guilty as to the remaining facts charged. Only the defendant appealed as to the guilty part among the judgment below, and the part of the judgment below was not appealed by both the defendant and the prosecutor, and this part was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of trial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In relation to the fraud, misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) regarding the fact-finding and fraud, the Defendant did not perform the V construction through the pertinent company indicated in the business plan and estimate submitted by the Defendant to Ulsan-gun when applying for subsidies. However, this is merely due to various ex post facto circumstances, such as the increase of expenses in the process of public photography, the delay of construction, the change in the method of construction, and the situation of the pertinent company, and the Defendant had the intent to commit fraud since it spent more than the total project cost stated in the said business plan.

subsection (b) of this section.

B) In relation to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the aforementioned investigation documents, the Defendant: (a) directly prepared a statement of transaction in UT and a tax invoice under UT, as stated in paragraph (2) of the Preliminary facts charged; and (b) submitted the above report of completion of the business; (c) however, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was proved without reasonable doubt that the Defendant did not consent by T, etc. to prepare each of the above documents.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The Defendant alleged “AI project” in 2012 had an employee separately employed AL, etc. to work for the said project during the farming season, and had the said employee perform the said project. However, in the process of paying the price, the said employee is the side of the said worker.