The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to “D Development Project” promoted on June 20, 201 by the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Department of the lower judgment, which was conducted on June 20, 2014 by misunderstanding the facts related to Paragraph 1 of the crime of the lower judgment and misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant invested a kind of kind of kind in kind with the investment of marine seedlings from H, and thus, the Defendant should be deemed to have actually fulfilled the obligation to pay subsidies.

Even if this can not be seen as an investment in kind, because F provided the National Treasury subsidy with knowledge of these circumstances, the Defendant does not deceiving F.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the above facts of the crime, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts related to Paragraph 2 of the crime and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, the Defendant performed the obligation to bear the amount of KRW 495,00,000 through the contribution in kind as above.

Therefore, the exceeding amount was in the condition that it was impossible to submit the execution details of the self-paid charge as the price for seeds and seedlings, and the F was aware of such circumstances.

In addition, the defendant said that the part related to personnel expenses should not be included in the self-responsibility.

Nevertheless, since F prepared an accounting verification report containing the details of the purchase price of seeds and seedlings related to the crime No. 2 of the judgment below and submitted it to the Marine Affairs and Fisheries Department, the Defendant did not deceiving F.

B. On September 9, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn from the instant subsidized projects.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the above facts of the crime, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The sentencing (3 years and 6 months) of the judgment of the court below which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The progress of the subsidized project of this case and the structure of the National Treasury subsidies.