All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing) 1) actually paid KRW 42 million to construction business operators as personnel expenses of plastic greenhouse construction. Defendant A paid KRW 24 million to Defendant B as material expenses. As such, Defendant B paid KRW 60 million as a result of the payment of the cost to Defendant B. 2) The lower court’s punishment (an order of community service for each of 8 months and suspended execution, two years and 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same as in the lower court, and on this point, the lower court: (a) made a false written confirmation of deposit and tax invoice and applied for the instant subsidy; and (b) there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A paid personnel expenses of KRW 42 million and material expenses of KRW 24 million; and (c) Defendant A separately paid Defendant B to Defendant B’s wife, and found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

① The Defendants failed to submit objective data on the grounds that the Defendants paid KRW 42 million to M in cash from the lower court to the trial.

However, Defendant A was unable to prepare 60 million won in cash at the beginning, and there was a shortage of cash to the extent of writing a false certificate of deposit. In light of this, Defendant A’s statement that Defendant A was able to pay a certain amount of money in cash for a short period of time is difficult to believe.

(2) At the time, Defendant B was in addition to the vinyl construction of this case, and also Defendant A.