The appeal is dismissed.

1. On the first ground of appeal, the court below held that the project cost of this case is part of the project cost to be managed and executed by the victims for the performance of each task, and is to be managed separately from the funds for other purposes. ② However, even if the company operated by the defendant receives project cost from the victims as the necessity of execution, it is to be used and managed only within the scope of the purpose of the implementation of the task, and is controlled by the victims. ③ If there is any balance between the amount used or being executed in violation of the relevant statutes and the project cost, the project cost of this case is to be returned without delay. In light of the above, the project cost of this case is to be entrusted by the victims to the company operated by the defendant, and it constitutes money entrusted by the victim with the management and execution, and its ownership is still reserved to the victims.

The decision was determined.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the Subsidy Management Act” or by omitting judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the second ground of appeal, the court below held that, as seen earlier, the victims’ total project expenses, including the government contributions and the Defendant Company’s contributions, including the Defendant Company’s contributions, entrusted management and execution to the Defendant Company, and the money entrusted by setting its purpose and purpose, are reserved against the victims, and the ownership is still reserved against the victims. Therefore, the entire amount used out of the Defendant’s intent constitutes embezzlement.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment on the amount of embezzlement and the management of subsidies, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.