All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A and E’s appeal

A. As to the first ground of appeal, the term “a false application or any other unlawful means” in Article 40 of the Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 13931, Jan. 28, 2016; hereinafter “the Subsidy Act”) means the affirmative passive act that is deemed to be unfair in light of social norms, even though a person is unable to receive subsidies under the Act in light of normal procedures, and that may affect the decision-making on granting of subsidies (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14257, Jun. 30, 201). The lower court acknowledged, based on evidence, that Defendant A and E should bear the burden of P in relation to the facility support project, the construction business operator actually received indirect subsidies by pretending Defendant Q, who is the co-Defendant Q, to bear the burden of indirect subsidies, and received indirect subsidies or indirect subsidies by using the intent and ability to implement the subsidy, and thus, received indirect subsidies or indirect subsidies from the Defendants.

In view of the fact that the subsidy law violated Article 40 of the Subsidy Act, it was found guilty.

In light of the above legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the subsidies, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Examining the reasoning of the appeal in light of relevant legal principles and evidence with respect to the second and third grounds for appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err in its judgment that found the Defendants guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by taking advantage of the remaining means, other than deception related to fraudulent construction details, among the facts charged against the said Defendants.