The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant merely obtained approval from the Korea Creative Content Agency after receiving a report that there is no problem with the use of subsidies other than those of the type identical to the instant facts charged, or obtained permission from the Korea Creative Content Agency, and did not know that A violated the law that it would use subsidies for another purpose, or conspired for use other than those of A and item.

B. In cases of subsidies under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes by misapprehending legal principles, project costs may be implemented without prior approval of a central government agency in cases of changing the items of subsidies not exceeding 30% of the initially compiled budget of the relevant item and acquiring assets less than 2 million won not appropriated in the project plan.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) based on the fact that: (a) A obtained the Defendant’s approval for the use of subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose; (b) the Defendant did not verify the need for the permission of an agency related to the use other than its original purpose; and (c) the Defendant was aware of the credibility in A’s statement in that it did not confirm the need for the permission of the agency related to the use of subsidy; and (d) the Defendant had already been aware of the fact that the instant subsidy was used as construction cost; and (d) it is difficult for A to report to the Defendant with a false report on the diversion of subsidy and to view that there is any circumstance to use the subsidy independently for any purpose other than its original purpose.

B. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle is based on the Defendant’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle, Article 23 of the Subsidy Management Act (Subsidy Management Act).