1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The court below held that Defendant A is a fine of 40,000,000 won for the first and second crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of a fine of KRW 12 million and fine of KRW 3 million/Defendant B: fine of KRW 7 million/Defendant C: fine of KRW 8 million) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The defendants did not use the subsidies received by the defendants for personal purposes. The subsidies of this case were actually used for inspection of both temples, although they were at the time of receipt of the subsidies, Defendant B and C invested the amount equivalent to the amount they would have to bear at the time of their initial application for the subsidies to the Corporation, Defendant A had the time of their own accommodation through confinement for about five months, and must support his family. Defendant B and C did not commit the crime of this case to pursue private interests, but did not commit the crime of this case to build and repair the building of the temple with their body, and they did not have any personal benefits. Defendant A deposited the amount of KRW 1 million at the trial of the court of the first instance at the South Yangyang-ju, which is the Foundation, and Defendant B deposited the amount of KRW 35 million at the time of their initial application for the subsidies, and Defendant B deposited the amount of KRW 10 million at the time of the suspension of execution, Defendant C deposited the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 for more than three weeks.

B. However, the amount of the subsidy that the Defendants unlawfully received is larger than KRW 100 million (the amount of fraud by Defendant A, Defendant A, and Defendant C: KRW 33766,00,00,00,000). There is a negative effect that the subsidy could not be properly provided in the place where the subsidies should be properly provided due to the crime of this case, and if the budget is insufficient due to the waste of the subsidy, the result that would eventually result in the failure to meet the taxes of the public and would undermine the important public interest. Defendant A led each of the crimes of this case, and Defendant A denied the subsidy.