A, B, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

However, as to the Defendants, this is against the Defendants.

Defendant

A is a H (main director) director in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, who actually takes charge of the overall affairs of the above company, and Defendant B is the representative of J (J) in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, who takes charge of the overall affairs of the above company, and Defendant C is a person who actually takes charge of the overall affairs of the above company, and Defendant C is a representative of L (State) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, who actually takes charge of the overall affairs of the above company, and Defendant D is a representative of N (State) in Yangsan-si, who takes charge of the overall affairs of the above company.O, P, Q and R is a joint operator of (State)T located in the nine floors in Busan-si, Busan-si, Busan-si, and is engaged in the business of management consulting, various applications for national subsidies, etc.

In order to promote the employment of the aged who are difficult to find employment or change their occupation, the Republic of Korea grants a certain amount of subsidy, i.e., subsidies for extension of employment of the aged, in proportion to the number of the aged who continue to work according to the abolition or extension of the retirement age.

1. Defendant A, along with the foregoingO, received the above subsidies by abusing the fact that a public official in charge of granting subsidies for extension of employment of the aged is able to abolish the retirement age and verify the extension of the retirement age based solely on the documents submitted, such as the rules of employment, upon receipt of evidentiary data on the requirements for payment of the subsidies for extension of employment of the aged, and by falsely preparing and submitting the rules of employment as if he extended the retirement age or abolished the retirement age, and subsequently, he was willing to pay approximately

Accordingly, the facts that the first police officer of August 1, 2013 did not have extended the retirement age from 55 to 60 years of age on July 1, 2010, and even if the retirement age was 60 years of age, the saidO, etc. were to have extended the retirement age from 55 to 60 years of age on July 1, 2010. However, as if the retirement age was extended from 55 to 50 years of age on July 1, 2010, the provisions on retirement age were to have been set at 55 years of age, the collective agreement, the rules of employment, and the regulations on retirement age were to be set at 60 years of age. < Amended by Presidential Decree No.