The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the 2009 collective agreement of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) where the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles actually operated, the Defendant stated that “the retirement age of union members shall not be restricted” was abolished at that time. The retirement age of the above company’s workplace shall be deemed abolished. The Defendant applied for subsidies for extension of employment of the elderly.

In October 2013, the company which had already abolished retirement age was also in force with the provision of the subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly, and the defendant was entitled to receive the subsidy for extension of employment of the elderly under the Employment Insurance Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in accordance with the requirements for abolition of the above retirement age.

However, in the process, the defendant prepared a false rules of employment on July 1, 2009, which set the retirement age at 60 years of age and submitted a subsidy to the head of the Ulsan local employment center by submitting a false rules of employment. However, the defendant was entitled to receive a reasonable amount of subsidy according to the fulfillment of the requirements for the abolition of the retirement age for fishing, and in this case, the defendant does not constitute “the case where he received a subsidy by unlawful means.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court set out the rules of employment on July 1, 2009, which set the retirement age at 60 years of age for the purpose of unfairly receiving subsidies.