A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant 1) were aware that the Defendant was allocated KRW 1 billion out of KRW 1.5 billion around the waste reclamation site to C by the International Development Promotion Committee without knowledge, and that KRW 500 million was allocated to C. However, considering that the Defendant was paid KRW 30 million and additionally allocated KRW 200 million around the waste reclamation site, it was said that he was given additional KRW 30 million to C, and there was no deception by deceiving the victim of the embezzlement of expenses for the second power plant attraction of the second power plant (hereinafter “the embezzlement of expenses of this case”) and that the Defendant was paid KRW 100 million under the name of expenses for the second power plant attraction. However, as long as the Defendant was paid KRW 100 million, the Defendant did not own another person’s property and did not use it as expenses for the above Defendant’s possession, the Defendant did not have any status of embezzlement of KRW 200 million.

3) The embezzlement of the damaged welfare fund due to the extension of the summer power plant 7 and 8 units (hereinafter “the embezzlement of the instant welfare fund”).

() It was true that the Defendant did not distribute KRW 54.8 million to C out of KRW 500 million of the damage welfare fund of KRW 500 million due to the extension of the river power plant 7 and No. 8 allocated to C. However, the Defendant was approved by the General Assembly of C at C by obtaining KRW 500 million of the welfare fund, and there was no embezzlement. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the instant fraud and each embezzlement. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The Defendant’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2 The sentencing of the prosecutor is too excessive.