The guilty part against Defendant A (including the innocent part) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. A. The prosecutor (the factual errors and the misapprehension of the legal principle) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) constitutes a basic requirement for the faithful operation of a welfare center, and thus, the establishment of fraud is an important element to determine whether there was deception as to a plan for the fund raising from the corporation. The Defendants failed to prepare a plan for the fund raising from the beginning. Since the Defendants embezzled subsidies received from D groups and deposited the funds into a welfare center under the name of the corporation transfer, the Defendants can be recognized as deceiving the victim group regarding the fund raising plan for the fund raising from the corporation transfer. Nevertheless, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the Defendants deceiving the victim group without the intention or ability to bear the fund raising from the beginning, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on this part of the crime by misapprehending the legal principles on deception in fraud or by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement in the part of occupational embezzlement, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendants’ 20-year public offering of the Act on the A’s account embezzlement.

C) In the case of embezzlement of BJ performance expenses, the Defendants intended not to pay performance expenses to BP at the beginning, and thus, the Defendants constitute embezzlement of support money by excluding funds from false accounting.