The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as stated in Article 1-1(a) of the lower judgment, the Defendant actually employed a person who wants to be employed as recorded in the items of the performance of a project. 2) The Defendant’s materials related to the employment of the person who prepared and appended to the performance of the project are merely reference materials, and there was no performance record for the Defendant in domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant can be selected as the entrusted business operator, there is no causal relationship between false statements in reference materials and the defendant's selection as the entrusted business operator and the defendant's receipt of the operating institution's subsidy.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of this case’s unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the sentence No. 1-A, No. 2-a, No. 1-b, No. 2-b, and No. 3 of the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant appointed a private defense counsel at the court below and recognized all the facts charged, and there was no fact that the defendant was employed through D in the investigative agency, and there was no illegality of misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, or that he was employed personally by the worker. As such, the defendant's assertion is without merit. 2) The defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal in the court below, and rejected the defendant's assertion in light of the court below's reasoning and a thorough comparison with the record, the court below's determination that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is just and acceptable.