A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The 2013-2013-201-201-201-2010-20-200-20-200-20-10-20-20-20-20-20-20-20-30-20-20-30-20-30-20-30-20-20-30-20-20-30-20-20-30-20-30-20-20-20-30-20-20-30-20-30-20-30-20-30-20-30-20-3

② Although Defendant B and C received subsidies from Gangnam-si with the intention to carry out the above “K dispatch business,” the above “K dispatch business” was not carried out due to the ex post facto occurrence, Defendant B and C’s act does not constitute occupational embezzlement as it did not constitute occupational embezzlement without the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

3) In relation to Paragraph (3) of the crime committed at the time of the original adjudication, Defendant A and B actually carried out the “M business” and executed the subsidy received therefrom. As such, this part of the facts charged does not constitute embezzlement. 4) In relation to Paragraph (4) of the crime committed at the time of the original adjudication, Defendant A and D prepared a case management log as described in Paragraph (4) of the crime at the time of the original adjudication, but this part of the facts charged does not constitute the forgery of private documents and the display of the falsified document.

5 It is true that Defendant B prepared a letter of member recommendation as stated in Paragraph 5 of the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication, but the candidate registration is not made at any time until the deadline for candidate registration of the head of Gangseo-si branch office at the time.