Among them, the guilty part against Defendant A, B, and D and the part against Defendant E, F, and C shall be reversed.

A. In relation to the fact that Defendant A, B, D, E, and F1 is erroneous and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the violation of social welfare business due to the purchase of daily gift to Defendant A, B, D, E, and F, the cost of purchasing daily gift to self-support workers does not constitute the use of subsidies for purposes other than the original purpose.

② In relation to the violation of the Social Welfare Business Act due to the payment of qualification certificates to Defendant B, P constitutes a person eligible for qualification allowances, and thus does not constitute a case where subsidies are used for purposes other than their original purpose.

2) Each sentence (each fine of KRW 500,00) against Defendant A, B, D, E, and F of the lower judgment’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles, the prosecutor 1 found Defendant A guilty of the following facts: (a) the use of H project costs for Defendant A for purposes other than the purpose of use; (b) the occupational embezzlement and violation of social welfare business due to the Association’s non-payment; (c) the payment of viewing expenses for Defendant B; (d) the occupational embezzlement and violation of social welfare business due to the Association’s non-payment; (e) the violation of the occupational embezzlement and social welfare business due to Defendant D’s non-payment; (b) the facts charged against Defendant C; and (c) the purchase of daily gift to Defendant A, D, E, and F; and (e) the payment of qualification

2) The sentence against Defendant A, B, D, E, and F of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing is unfair as it is too uneasible.

2. Determination as to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A, B, D, E, and F

(a) No person who is a summary of the facts charged shall use subsidies granted to social welfare business entities for any purpose other than its original purpose;

1) From 2011 to 2014, Defendant A was engaged in the application and disbursement of subsidies as the chief office of the Labor Welfare Business Entities J (hereinafter “instant Center”) located in J in Jinju-si.

A) The Defendant purchased a gift on January 24, 201.