The judgment below

Among them, there is a violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies for Personnel Expenses of G, H and I.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that Q has received subsidies by ordering the Defendant to apply for subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means as stated in the facts charged in the instant case can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, since the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the Defendant, from around 2001, serving as the head of the office or head of the D Self-Support Center located in Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and actually manages the “E business entity” and “F business entity” as part of the project of the said self-support center. The said self-support center is an organization that received subsidies of 80% of national expenses, 10% of Do expenses, and 10% of military expenses each

Any person stated in the indictment of this case as "a false application or any other unlawful means", but the date and time of crime is prior to October 25, 201, which was the enforcement date of the Act on the Management of Subsidies amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 201, and accordingly, the applicable provisions of this Act are not receiving subsidies from the Defendant, despite the fact that the Defendant did not receive subsidies by means of false application or other unlawful means (the indictment of this case is stated as "the indictment of this case by false application or other unlawful means," as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Table. However, although the Defendant stated that the full-time workers G, H, and I belonging to the business team "E" from February 208 to December 2, 2010 as the indictment of the Defendant's each type of indictment, this appears to be a clerical error.

In spite of having caused work in the K community operated by the J, the amount of wages paid to them is 40.0. The sum of wages paid to them by means of filing an application for a subsidy with the Gohap-gun after preparing relevant documents as if they were working in the E Association during the said period.