The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant D and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

D. The defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant paid only the portion corresponding to the down payment out of the construction cost unfashed to the service company, which is within the scope of the construction cost to be duly paid, which is effective.

Thus, the defendant was partially returned from the service company.

Even if that amount is already a subsidy, it cannot be said that it is a specified amount because it has already lost its nature as a subsidy.

In addition, the Defendant used the money that was returned from the service company for the victim agricultural company C(hereinafter “C”) or for the personal purpose is not consumed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) refers to the facts charged charged against the original Defendants as charged. As to Defendant D, A, and B, the facts charged constitute the primary facts charged in relation to “the second ancillary facts charged” as seen below, and Defendant C’s modification of the indictment regarding “the first ancillary facts charged” is revoked with respect to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15588, Apr. 1, 2009). As seen below, the facts charged against Defendant C are referred to as the primary facts charged for convenience, except where there is no separate conjunctive facts charged with Defendant C.

In the event that the Defendant D submitted a contract and tax invoice in which the full amount was paid, and received the subsidy, it is recognized that the act of deception and the act of disposal resulting therefrom is recognized, and the subsidy has been granted by illegal means.