2. The fact that the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes from the beginning, the amount of the instant embezzlement was returned to Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the amount of personal livestock farming was not committed, and the part used for the personal purpose of the Defendants was fully limited to the total amount of embezzlement, and Defendant A did not have any criminal record of the same kind. Meanwhile, Defendant B did not have any criminal record except for punishment of a fine of KRW 300,000,000 for the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents around 1990. In particular, Defendant B was in the position of receiving instructions from Defendant A for the execution of duties, and was not in the leading position in the instant crime, and the amount of the entire crime and the amount of the embezzlement was considerably less than that of Defendant A, while his spouse was in the situation where considerable hospital expenses are needed, etc., there are extenuating circumstances for sentencing against the Defendants.

However, there is a need to strictly punish the act of using subsidies from the State or a local government in that it may cause damage to the people who are taxpayers or their local residents who are in a unsound financial situation. Furthermore, in order to disguise that the subsidy was paid as the original project cost, it is very active and deceptive that the applicable law of the crime of this case is considerably active and deceptive, such as: (a) Defendant A took the lead of the crime of this case; (b) the total amount of embezzlement is equivalent to that of the sole crime; and (c) the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, as seen earlier, are the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants.