The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant applied for basic childcare fees by unlawful means, such as inputting the amount stated in the false statement of false transaction, stating the price of the unfashed food materials, into the childcare integrated information system as if it actually executed, and obtained the Defendant’s basic childcare fees, which are subsidies, by fraud or unlawful means; and (b) the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of fraud and infant Infant Care Act; (c) thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not have any such criminal intent or was not related to the Defendant’s act and the delivery of the basic childcare fees, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the Prosecutor examined the facts charged of the instant case ex officio, and the Prosecutor tried at the trial before remanding the case (the trial before remanding the case).

As stated in the revised facts charged, an application for changes in the bill of amendment was filed, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

B. Prior to the amendment, the Defendant received food materials from F (G) (i.e., food materials suppliers, from March 2012 to June 2012, 2012) while operating a childcare center located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si.

The Defendant received food materials from the F business owner H and office manager I, and received the money from the head of the H and office I, and received the money for food materials more than the money actually supplied, and received the difference in cash, and received the money, and the statement of the transaction would be returned to cash, and the Defendant would receive the National Treasury subsidy for food expenses by unlawful means, and receive it by fraud.

Therefore, the Defendant’s price for food materials supplied by F on March 2012 is actually 226.