2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months;

3. Provided, That this shall not apply;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant 1’s attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below): (a) in collusion with J, the Defendants received KRW 4,488,80 in the expense of this case as travel expenses of the Dong and embezzled them at will; and (b) there is sufficient evidence to support this. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of only KRW 958,00 against Defendant A and KRW 767,400 against Defendant C of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendants and J did not have been proven of public invitation and the participation of Defendant B of this case; and (b) acquitted the Defendants of the remainder of this part, on the grounds that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (A: Defendant 6, B: Defendant 7,00, KRW 700, KRW 500, KRW 300, KRW 767,000.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant, in collusion with J, A, and C, made a false appropriation of personnel expenses or an excessive appropriation of personnel expenses in comparison with actual personnel expenses in collusion with Defendant B (1) 1’s annual number 2 through 8, and 10’s portion of the attached list of crime sights of the lower judgment, did not constitute embezzlement by arbitrarily consuming the recovered amount.

B) The Defendant, in collusion with C, has falsely appropriated or paid the labor cost of the design service business in excess of the actual labor cost, and then has not been embezzled by arbitrarily consuming it. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) mistake of facts by the prosecutor;