2. The judgment of the court below is based on the fact that the transport company received a retirement age extension subsidy for the promotion of employment of the elderly who is difficult to find employment or change their occupation by manipulating the retirement age according to the rules of employment, and it seems that the company and workers who were able to extend the retirement age of workers would have been deprived of such opportunity. In light of the amount of the subsidy received by the transport company and the commission received by the Defendants, the transport company has large amount of the crime in light of the amount of the subsidy and the commission received by the Defendants, even if the government requires more ethical awareness, the company has committed the crime continuously for a long time since the economic interest is far long from the perspective of the demand for more severe ethical awareness, and it is very poor that the crime has been damaged the function of the government's subsidy administration. In light of the fact that the defendants' planned leading to the crime, it is difficult to see the seriousness of the role of the defendants, the defendants' age, family relations, and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, each of the judgment below's assertion is

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.