The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant had the construction cost to be paid to the O, a contractor of the instant subsidy project. However, the Defendant requested the Defendant to directly pay the Defendant labor cost of KRW 20 million, which he/she would have received from the O. As the Defendant believed the horses of K and paid KRW 20 million out of the instant subsidy to K as the benefits for reduction, the Defendant did not have any intention to use the instant subsidy for other purposes.

2) Although the instant subsidy project plan does not state the purchase cost of the building site, it is merely merely a mere guidelines of an administrative agency. As long as the instant land purchased by K was used as the site of the building constructed in accordance with the instant subsidy project, the Defendant did not incur subsidies according to the project plan, as long as it was used as the instant land purchased by K at the above KRW 20 million as the site of the building.

the purpose of Article 41 and Article 22(1) of the Act on the Management of Subsidies (hereinafter referred to as the “Fund Act”) is not to be used for any purpose other than the purpose of use under Article 41 and 22(1).

[Defendant's defense counsel at the second trial date of the trial of the first instance, the subsidies under the Subsidy Act refer only to the subsidies granted by the State. The above 20 million won used by Defendant cannot be deemed as the State subsidies. Thus, even if this is useful, it was added on the ground of appeal that the use of subsidies cannot be deemed as the use of subsidies for purposes other than the original purpose. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was asserted after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal (to examine this part ex officio as follows).

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the lower court’s determination 1) The Defendant is the head of the village of Jeju City D, and the E business assistant, which was implemented in the above D village in 2011.

A subsidized project operator shall be the details of statutes and decisions to grant subsidies.