All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (De facto misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles) submitted the instant “Support Project for Production Cost” (hereinafter “instant mileage Support Project”) to the members at the time of applying for participation, and did not directly prepare an application for subsidies or delegate the authority to prepare a request for subsidies to the public official in charge, and even if the Defendants delegated the authority to prepare a request for subsidies to the public official in charge of domestic affairs, the Defendants do not delegate the authority to prepare false documents.

Therefore, the Defendants did not have any awareness about the falsity of the application for the instant subsidy. Therefore, there was no intention to obtain the subsidy by false or other unlawful means.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (e.g., Defendant A and B: fine of 3 million won for each of the cases; and Defendant C: fine of 2 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Article 40 of the former Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 2011) provides that “Any person who has received subsidies or indirect subsidies by false application or other unlawful means, or any person who knowingly provides subsidies or indirect subsidies, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding five million won.” In this context, “any false application or other unlawful means” is deemed to be fraudulent and unfair by social norms, even though they are not entitled to subsidies under the Act, in light of normal procedures.