2. B

3. C

From March 2008, Defendant A was in office as the chairperson of E PPosito Branch (hereinafter referred to as the "Posito Branch") from March 2008 to December 201, Defendant B was in office as the head of the Secretariat of PPosito Branch from March 2008 to December 201. Defendant C was in office as the head of the Secretariat of PPosito Branch from January 2012 to March 201. Defendant C was in office as the head of the Secretariat of PPosito Branch from January 2012. The Posito Branch has been provided with operating expenses from the victim PPosito Branch every year, expenses for issuing the Senior Citizens' Posito Branch, and the old Youth

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s joint criminal conduct

(a) Crimes related to expenses incurred in issuing circulars to older persons;

The Defendants, on the condition that they voluntarily contain 30% of the expenses incurred in the meeting of the Korean Senior Citizens Association due to the shortage of operating funds of the meeting of the Korean Senior Citizens Association, provided that the victims receive subsidies related to the issuance of the meeting of the senior citizens from the victim in a manner less than the actual amount of the expenses incurred in issuing the meeting of the senior citizens, and conspired to use the amount of the actual expenses and the difference as the operating funds of the meeting of the Korean Senior Citizens Association.

According to the above public offering, Defendant B obtained approval from Defendant AO at the office of the port-to-port branch located in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Sinpo-si, Mapo-si, on March 2008, and instructed its employees to do so. Defendant B prepared the documents related to the application for subsidy payment as if the cost of issuing the senior citizens' response site was 6,50,000, and submitted the documents related to the application for subsidy payment as if the cost of issuing the senior citizens' response site was 6,50,000, at around that time, to the public official in charge of the welfare of the senior citizens

On March 24, 2008, the Defendants deceptioned the public official in charge of the victim’s response, and received KRW 5,000,000,000, which is the amount obtained by deducting the self-paid charges from the Nong Bank account (G) in the name of the branch bank in the name of one-time branch bank (G) in terms of subsidies related to the issuance of the response sheet for the elderly from the victim. The Defendants, as described in the attached list of crimes (1) from satise to June 16, 201, by deceiving the public official in charge of the victim eight times, and received KRW 38,70,000,00 in total as subsidies related to the issuance of the response sheet for the elderly from the victim. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired the victim to receive property by deceiving the victim.

(b) Crimes related to subscription fees for the elderly;

When receiving a subsidy related to the old-age newspaper subscription fee issued at H from the victim, the Defendants: (a) received an excessive subsidy from the victim in a manner that lowers the actual amount of the subsidy; (b) provided only a part of the subsidy to H; or (c) provided the entire subsidy to H; and (d) conspired to acquire the subsidy from the victim by receiving a refund of the difference between the actual subscription fee and the actual subscription fee from H.

On August 14, 2008, Defendant B, after obtaining approval from Defendant A at the office of the port branch office, ordered the employees to do so. The fact was that the old-age newspaper’s subscription fee was 9,756,765, even though the old-age newspaper’s subscription fee was 12,100,000, the documents related to the application for subsidies were prepared, and around that time, submitted to the public official in charge of welfare for the elderly and the office for welfare for the elderly, whose age is unknown.

On August 22, 2008, the Defendants deceptioned the public officials in charge of the victims, received KRW 12,100,000 from the victims of the Trade Bank (G) account in the name of the Positotong Bank (G) in the name of the Posito branch on September 23, 2008, and delivered KRW 12,100,000 to H as the subscription fee for the year newspaper, and then transferred KRW 2,343,235, excluding the actual subscription fee, from H around October 7 of the same year.

In addition, from around that time to December 14, 201, the Defendants deceiving the public officials in charge of the victim seven times as shown in the list of crimes (3) of the attached Table 1 to 7 marks, and received a total of KRW 94,60,000 from the victim as subsidies related to the subscription fee for the old-age newspaper. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired the victim to receive property by deceiving the victim.

2. Defendant A and Defendant C co-principal

(a) Crimes related to expenses incurred in issuing circulars to older persons;

The Defendants received subsidies related to the issuance of the senior citizens' response paper from the victim on the ground of paragraph 1(a) of the same paragraph, and conspired to use excessive subsidies from the victim for operating funds of the senior citizens' response paper in a way that the expenses for the issuance of the senior citizens' response paper are over-the-counter and the difference between the actual costs and the difference.

Defendant C, according to the above public offering, obtained approval from Defendant A at the office of the Posting Port Branch, around February 20, 2012, instructed the employees to do so. The fact was that the cost of issuing the response site for the elderly was KRW 2,790,909, but the cost of issuing the response site was 4,300,000, and around that time, submitted the documents related to the application for subsidy payment to the public official in charge of welfare for the elderly at the office of the welfare of the elderly with the elderly in the

From March 7, 2012, the Defendants: (a) by deceiving a public official in charge of the victim’s public official; and (b) received KRW 3,00,000,000, which is the amount obtained by deducting the self-paid charges from the Nong Bank account (J) in the name of the branch bank in the name of one-time branch bank (J) around 4,300,000, under the pretext of subsidies related to the issuance of the response sheet for the elderly; (c) the Defendants, as described in the attached Table of Crimes (2) from around that time to July 26, 2013, by deceiving the public official in charge of the victim four times, and received KRW 12,00,000 from the victim as subsidies related to the issuance of the response sheet for the elderly; (d) thereby, the Defendants

(b) Crimes related to subscription fees for the elderly;

When receiving a subsidy related to the old-age newspaper subscription fee issued by the victim from the victim, the Defendants received excessive subsidies from the victim in a manner that lowers the actual amount of the subscription fee, once delivered it to H, and conspired to acquire the subsidy from the victim by receiving the difference between the actual subscription fee and the actual subscription fee from H.

Defendant C, according to the above public offering, obtained the approval from Defendant A at the office of the port branch office around January 6, 2012, ordered the employees to do so, and Defendant C prepared the documents related to the application for subsidies as if the old-age newspaper was 28,050,000, even though the old-age newspaper subscription fee was 19,912,694, and submitted it to the public official in charge of the welfare of the elderly at the port center for the welfare of the elderly and the office for the elderly.

On January 20, 2012, the Defendants deceptiond the public officials in charge of the victims, received KRW 28,050,000 from the victims under the pretext of subsidies related to the subscription fee for the old newspaper, and delivered KRW 28,050,000 in total on two occasions over two occasions from July 2 of the same year and around December 18 of the same year to H of the old newspaper, and received KRW 8,137,306 in total, excluding the actual subscription fee, from H of the same year after July 10 of the same year and around December 27 of the same year, from 2012.

Defendants were negligent from doing so, from around that time to July 3, 2014, and were granted KRW 85,100,000 in total as subsidies related to the subscription fee for the old-age newspaper by deceiving the public officials in charge of the victims three times as shown in the list of crimes (3) No. 8 to 10,000 among the annexed list of crimes (3) from around that time. Accordingly, Defendants conspired the victims to receive property by deceiving them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant B (including the part concerning Defendant C's replacement), K, Defendant A, L, and M (including N's replacement part)

1. Each police statement made to 0, P, Q, R, S, and N;

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. A report on internal investigation (a copy of a statement in 0 Ri and a copy of the agricultural bank passbook in Trine);

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of the statement of transaction in the NongHyup bank account in the name of a suspect B; Attachment of a copy of the statement of transaction in the NongHyup bank; Attachment of a response sheet and the details of obtaining subsidies for old newspapers; Attachment of the document of obtaining subsidies for old newspapers; Attachment of the document of transaction in the old newspaper account; Attachment of the document of transaction in the old newspaper account; Attachment of the document of financial transaction details which was refunded out of the subsidies for old newspapers from 2008 to 2011; Attachment of the document of transaction in the details of the grant of subsidies for and the details of the return of the execution of the subsidies for the old newspapers from 2012 to 2014; Attachment of the document of financial transaction details on the subsidies for and the details of the return of the execution of the subsidies issued in the response sheet in the year 2012 to 2014; Attachment of the

Judgment on Defendants and Defense Counsel's argument

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants applied for the payment of legitimate subscription fees as subsidies in relation to the old-age newspaper subscription fees, but they were only the flag that the H, a corporation that issued the same, received subsidies and actually made them under the pretext of rebates or support payments, and that the Defendants did not have the intent of deceiving or deceiving the victims.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, subscription fees set by H in relation to the old-age newspaper, are somewhat different for each branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the affiliate where the Defendants asserted rebates, and there is a difference in the amount equivalent to rebates. In this case, the subscription fees finally received by H in relation to the issuance of the old-age newspaper are only the amount excluding the amount equivalent to rebates regardless of whether it is the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch.

Contrary to this, the Defendants and defense counsel’s arguments are not acceptable.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant laws and the choice of punishment for the crime;

Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Code, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code

[Recommendation Form 2 (at least KRW 100, but less than KRW 500), an aggravated area (at least one year and eight months of imprisonment or six years of imprisonment) of category 2 (at least KRW 100,000, or less than KRW 500): The increase in the first step of type as a result of adding up the same competition

【Special Person under Guard】

Where a crime has been committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time;

【Pronouncement Decision】

The crime of this case was committed in a systematic and planned manner over a long-term period, the sum of money acquired by the defendants through the crimes committed by the defendants exceeds KRW 230 million in the case of defendant A, KRW 130 million in the case of defendant B, KRW 100 million in the case of defendant C, KRW 100 million in the case of defendant C, not in agreement with the victim, and there remain many parts that have yet to be recovered from damage, and in the case of defendant C, there are two times the criminal records.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants in the past through the method without any awareness of any particular crime in order to raise funds for the operation of the Port Posingsingsing that the defendants did not use the money acquired by the crime of this case for the personal interests of the defendants, not for the personal interests of the defendants, but for the operation of the Port Posingsingsingsingsingsings, the defendants made efforts to pay damages to the victims by depositing certain money as compensation for damages, the defendants are aged, the defendants are the elderly, the defendants Eul are the first crime, and there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine or punishment exceeding the same kind of crime in the case of the defendants A, the defendants C had no history of punishment exceeding 20 years prior to the crime of fraud, and the defendants are against the defendants' wrongness.

In addition to these circumstances, various records, such as character, conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after crimes, are revealed. The sentencing factors are considered and the sentence against the Defendants is determined beyond the scope of recommendation.