Part concerning Defendant D and E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

D. The defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

A. Defendant B (A) The lower court found the Defendant guilty, but the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the date of enforcement of the Rules of Employment by U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) was revised, and there was no fact that he conspiredd with AD, and thus, there was a criminal intent to commit fraud and fraudulent supply and demand.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Even if the sentencing is not unfair, the punishment of the lower judgment (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The lower court found Defendant guilty, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Even if the sentencing is not unfair, the sentence of the lower judgment (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) As to Defendant D, the lower court found Defendant D not guilty of the above Defendant, but it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent by deception in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was at the same workplace as Y Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Y”) and at the same time filed an application for subsidies with multiple companies with the same time when the retirement age extension period is extended; and (b) the circumstances in which the Rules of Employment was submitted in 2007, not only

Therefore, the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to Defendant E, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty, but it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s receipt of the company’s official seal, etc. was made under the permission of the Defendant who sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant was denied the instant subsidy, while revising the rules of employment of AA corporation (hereinafter “A”).

Therefore, the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant B