The judgment below

Each part of the conviction against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and F Co., Ltd. shall be punished by fine 7,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not provide a lump sum subcontract to sewage suppliers without lending the name or directly managing the heat system construction work (hereinafter “the instant solar energy construction work”) and solar power infrastructure installation work (hereinafter “the instant solar energy construction work,” in addition to the heating construction work in this case, and each construction work in this case, referred to as “the instant construction work”) that was contracted by the J Center under the jurisdiction of the victim G institution (hereinafter “victim center”).

Even if the Defendants did not directly manage each of the instant construction works in a lump sum subcontract to sewage suppliers.

Even if such act alone does not constitute “the act of fraud” or “the act of false filing or other unlawful means” under Article 40 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016; hereinafter the same).

Furthermore, since the subsidy granted was used in line with the purpose of the project of this case, there was no conspiracy as well as the criminal intent of defraudation to the Defendants.

B) Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”)

In addition, there is no room for the victim center to establish fraud due to the violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies and the fraud due to fraudulent receipt of subsidies, since it does not constitute a “person who receives subsidies” under Article 40 of the former Subsidy Management Act, and there is no fact that the Defendants received subsidies in excess of the amount that they should receive or should receive for a project that is not subject to subsidies, and therefore, there is no room for the victim center to permit subcontracting.