The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is as follows: “F’s head director B, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant D, etc. received subsidies in excess of the amount of subsidies received by Defendant D for the purpose of meal service support projects under the name of food materials and collected the amount of money equivalent to 1/2 through 1/3 from among them to be returned to Defendant D, and used them for the short operating expenses of F; ① Defendant B, and Defendant D, etc. five times from May 10, 2012 to July 9, 2012; ② Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D et al. received subsidies in the name of 18,50,000 won from around 30 to January 16, 2013; and ④ Defendant D et al. used subsidies in the name of 30,500,000 won over 12 times from around 20, 2012 to around 16, 2013; and ③ Defendant D, Defendant 2, and 3.5.

“” is:

As to this, the court below held that F used the subsidy in paying food materials for its original purpose, as long as F used to pay food materials according to the price reasonably established for the quantity of food materials actually supplied, F used the subsidy in this case for its original purpose.

It is reasonable to see that Defendant D paid the operating income to be acquired by himself among the purchase price of the food materials of this case to F and used it as operating expenses.

The judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant D guilty of the instant facts charged was reversed and acquitted on the ground that the amount owned by Defendant D was merely a donation to F.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. The use of funds by clients for purposes other than for a limited purpose is derived from personal purposes, as well as from the entrustment of funds, which are strictly limited for purposes.