Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The public prosecutor (1) found Defendant A to be guilty of facts as to acquittal or by misapprehending the legal principles on the fraudulent crime of this case, which led to KRW 260 million in total. Among this, the State subsidy of KRW 130 million in total, KRW 52 million in Do subsidy, KRW 78 million in Si subsidy, and KRW 78 million in Kim Jong-si, respectively. Defendant A issued a summary order at the Jeonju District Court as to the violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies and Subsidies (Act No. 4931) on August 7, 2010 and the summary order became final and conclusive on August 7, 2010, but the facts constituting the crime were 50 million in Do subsidy and KRW 260 million in Do subsidy, and KRW 78 million in Do subsidy, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged of this case or by misapprehending the legal principles on the acquittal of the Defendant.

(B) In light of the fact that the lower court rendered an acquittal of the facts charged in relation to the above fraud and adversely affected the sentencing on the remaining facts of the crime, the Defendant’s nature of the crime, motive of the crime, and the existence of the outline, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.

(2) In light of the fact that Defendant B received cash in relation to his duties even as Defendant B was a public official, and was actually subsidized to Defendant A and the nature of the crime was poor, the sentence of the lower court on Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair form of punishment) from the beginning.