The judgment below

Among them, violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies concerning personnel expenses and oil expenses of G, H and I.

1. According to the records of the court's scope of trial in this case, the court below found innocence on the grounds that the facts charged in this case fall under the case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's facts, ② the prosecutor appealed on the ground of misconception of facts, and the prosecutor appealed on the judgment of the court below's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case of violation of the Act on the Budgeting, H and I (hereinafter "G et al.")'s budget and management of the subsidy's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case's case'

In light of the above circumstances, the non-guilty part of the judgment prior to remand (the violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies for Personnel Expenses of M in the judgment of the court below) was finalized as it is by the prosecutor's failure to appeal, and thus, only the violation of the Act on the Budget and Management of Subsidies for Personnel Expenses and Oil Expenses of two other parties except G out of the judgment of the court below

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the Defendant received subsidies by false application or other unlawful means with respect to personnel expenses of two others G and the oil cost of cargo vehicles operated by J, the Defendant received subsidies otherwise by false application or other unlawful means.

The judgment of the court below that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was aware of such fact or that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The defendant in this part of the facts charged is the defendant.