The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal states that the Defendants filed an application to grant subsidies on January 14, 2012 to the effect that the Defendants would extend the 2 and 3th floor different from the project details as at the time of application for appropriation of the budget. Article 23 of the Subsidy Management Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “A subsidy operator shall obtain approval from the head of the central government agency in order to change the details of a subsidy program or to change the distribution of expenses incurred in relation to a subsidy program due to a change in circumstances.” The purport of the above provision is to prevent the use of subsidies differently from the originally planned contents. Considering the above provision, Article 23 of the Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. It is acceptable that the legislative purport of Article 23 of the Act is to prevent the use of subsidies in a way different from the original plan, as stated by the prosecutor. However, in light of Article 17(1) of the Act, “the head of a central government agency, upon receipt of an application for subsidies, shall determine whether to grant subsidies by examining whether the application is in conformity with the statutes and the purpose of the budget, and whether the contents of the subsidy are appropriate,” the contents of the subsidy are deemed to have become final and conclusive only when the “decision to grant subsidies” under Article 17 of the Act is determined even if the budget is determined according to the pertinent provision. Thus, even if the budget is determined, the application for subsidies was filed by attaching a project plan with any content different from the original plan

Even if the contents of the subsidized project are not yet determined, the contents of the subsidized project are changed.