1. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J is reversed.

2. Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts is prohibited from engaging in the process of selecting a subsidized business operator and determining the amount of subsidies, and there was no problem in the process of determining the qualification requirements for the subsidized business operator of this case or the amount of subsidies. The fact that the subsidized business operator, instead of the subsidized business operator, bears the burden of the subsidized business operator, and the subsidized business operator paid the self-paid charges directly, cannot be deemed to constitute fraud. Defendant A merely paid the self-paid charges amounting to 10% or 20% of total construction cost, thereby carrying out construction cost of 80-90% of total construction cost by instead of the subsidized business operator. Defendant A merely did not gain any profit due to this case’s crime, nor did Defendant considered losses equivalent to the subsidized business. In light of the characteristics of the subsidized business of this case, even if Defendant A knew in advance, it cannot be readily concluded that the subsidized business operator was not subject to the suspended execution of subsidies, and there is no reason to view that it was improper to receive subsidies from the subsidized business operator of this case or it did not constitute unjust sentencing.

B. Defendants B, C, and C, each of whom the lower court sentenced to Defendant B and C.