The parts against Defendant A, B, and F shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, in one and half years of imprisonment, and Defendant B.

A. The sentence imposed by the public prosecutor (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; two years of probation; three months of imprisonment; one year of probation; four months of imprisonment; one year of probation; one year of probation; one year of probation; and one year of imprisonment and two years of probation) is too unfluened and unfair.

B. Defendant B, C, and E’s sentence (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (as to the defendant A and F), prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal against the defendant A and F, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to add the facts charged against the above defendants, such as habitual fraud as stated in Paragraph (b) of the crime No. 4, to the facts charged against the above defendants. Since this court's permission was added, the part concerning the defendant A and F among the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

3. The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against Defendant C and E, the grounds of appeal against the said Defendants, and the grounds of appeal against Defendant B

A. Considering the public prosecutor’s grounds for appeal against Defendant C and E and the fact that Defendant C and E pretended to be supplied with research goods in the name of the accused company for a long time and obtained a large amount of research funds from the method of claiming the payment, strict punishment against the above Defendants should be required. However, in light of the fact that the above Defendants led to the confession of the crime of this case and violate the mistake, most of the defraudeds were repaid, Defendant C did not have any record of criminal punishment; Defendant E did not have any record of the same punishment; Defendant E does not have any record of punishment; and in light of all the sentencing conditions in the argument of this case, such as the age, character and conduct of the above Defendants, and home environment, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too somewhat less or unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's above defendants.