All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendants were to purchase the original Tracter (6125R); (b) the first Tractor (66,690,00 won in total; (c) the 44,007,000 won in a loan; (d) the 44,007,000 won in a loan; (d) the 44,007,000 won in a loan; and (e) the 58,676,000 won in a subsidy; and (d) the subsidies to be paid therefrom were determined as KRW 58,676,00 in a subsidy amounting to 58,67,00.

Since then, according to the change from the first 6125 R model to the 6140R model, the Defendants may receive the subsidies of KRW 58,676,00,00, which is the difference in the amount of 19,400,000, only if they should be additionally borne with their own contributions, but they could actually receive the subsidies of KRW 58,676,00,000 as if they actually borne only 46,00,000 with their own contributions and fulfilled the requirements for the payment of subsidies. Therefore, this constitutes the act of receiving and receiving the subsidies by unjust means.

Nevertheless, the Defendants satisfied the requirements for subsidization.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. In the event of the exercise of rights as a means of deception of relevant legal principles, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the deception belonging to such means are comprehensively observed, and such deception is not acceptable as a means of exercise of rights under social norms, the act of exercising rights constitutes fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1405, Oct. 14, 1997; 2002Do5085, Dec. 24, 2002). Furthermore, insofar as the defendant does not confession, the subjective constituent element of fraud, such as the re-performance of the defendant before and after the crime, environment, details and details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994); and the recognition of conviction, which is beyond reasonable doubt, shall be determined in full view of objective circumstances such as the facts charged.