The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case and the fraud on December 18, 201, and found the Defendant not guilty of the fraud on October 10, 201.

However, since only the defendant appealed on the guilty portion of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts or unreasonable sentencing, while the prosecutor did not appeal on the acquittal portion, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the convicted portion of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (as to fraud on December 18, 201), the Defendant submitted false data, such as a tax invoice, in accordance with C’s direction D by the full-time representative of the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed that C was deceiving the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below that recognized this part of the facts charged as a crime of fraud is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of KRW 1,000,000, imposed on the Defendant, is too unreasonable.

3. Before making ex officio judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the prosecutor will examine ex officio, and at the trial, Article 2-B of the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain, as the following is applied for changes in the bill of amendment, and this court permitted changes in the subject matter of the judgment.

The defendant is the central joint representative of C established for the purpose of business such as the protection of students' right to learn and the improvement of school environment, and D is a full-time representative of C, who manages the government subsidy granted to the above organization by the Ministry of Public Administration and Security and is engaged in the execution of such subsidy.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant had not been holding a correct horse-end event, the Defendant conspired with D to receive money under the pretext of lecture fees, such as lecture room rental fees, by preparing relevant documents as if he/she had held the above event at a place, and the Defendant conspired with D to do so on or around December 18, 201.