Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

, however, the defendant.

A. In light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ defense counsel (unfair form) led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the depth of the Defendants; (b) there are circumstances to consider Defendant A leading up to the instant crime; (c) Defendant A did not use the embezzlement and defraudation for personal purposes; (d) Defendant B participated in the instant crime according to the orders of Defendant A, the head, and the extent of his participation was insignificant; and (e) the instant damage was fully recovered, the lower court’s punishment, which sentenced Defendant A to the suspended sentence of one year; (b) 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor; (c) 160 hours; and (d) 5 million won of fine for Defendant B, is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ crime of this case committed by the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is very poor; (b) the Defendants’ welfare benefits of the residents and employees of the instant social welfare facilities were reduced due to the instant crime; (c) the need to prevent the recurrence of the crimes similar to the instant crime; and (d) the degree of participation in the instant crime by Defendant B is serious; and (e) the period of participation in the instant crime is a long-term period and the amount of damage is a large amount, each of the above punishments imposed by the lower court against

2. In light of the motive and background leading up to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and other various matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions of sentencing, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc., as shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the scope of recommendations and the criteria for suspension of execution according to each sentencing guidelines for the crime of fraud, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B cannot be deemed to be too heavy or too unreasonable, and the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unreasonable, and thus, it is unfair.