All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Defendant A received the subsidy by unlawful means, used the subsidy for any purpose other than the designated one, and used the subsidy that was kept in custody for the victim's death for personal purposes. However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants not guilty is erroneous in matters of law by erroneous determination of facts.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges is justifiable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

① regardless of the method of raising self-paid funds, the victim private city appears to have paid subsidies when verifying only the account details concerning the enforcement of self-paid funds, and therefore, it should be deemed that the applicant can choose the method of raising self-paid funds at will.

② The above-mentioned Act does not mean only the applicant’s property, but also can be borrowed from financial institutions or other persons on credit (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4101, Jan. 5, 2001). Defendant A consistently stated from the investigation process to the effect that “I borrowed money equivalent to the self-paid charges from the distributor of the agricultural machinery while purchasing the agricultural machinery, but thereafter repaid it in full.” Since each statement and account transaction details, which is the seller of the agricultural machinery and equipment, correspond to the above statement, Defendant A appears to have actually paid the self-paid charges.

(3) Although the portion of subsidies to be used as personnel expenses is used for purchasing agricultural machinery, etc., some of the subsidies have been paid.