The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In light of the overall circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the amount of the subsidy that the Defendant received as a false application exceeds 24,806,000 won, the amount of damage to the embezzlement of this case is relatively much more, the embezzlement of this case was carried out through a resolution of the board of directors, and the circumstances leading to the crime are somewhat considered; the Defendant does not use the subsidy due to the Defendant’s violation of the Subsidy Management Act for the personal purpose; the Defendant deposited KRW 170,000 for G merchants’ association which is the victim of the embezzlement of this case at the lower court; the Defendant reflects his mistake; and the Defendant’s age, character, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s assertion is somewhat unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational embezzlement), Article 40 of the Subsidy Management Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of receiving subsidies by false application), and the choice of fines;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for the crime of occupational embezzlement heavier than the hostage)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;