B Each fine of KRW 1,00,000, Defendant C and A shall be punished by each fine of KRW 500,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Defendant

B is the director of E, who is a severe welfare facility for the disabled in Kimpo-si D, and the defendant C and the defendant A have worked as a rehabilitation teacher of the above E.

1. On October 18, 2016, Defendant A assaulted the victim on three occasions on the floor of hand, on the ground that the victim F, who is a person with severe disabilities, in the above E, does not hear the horses of the Defendant.

2. Defendant B knew well that his career experience in G, a sports facility from January 1, 2001 to December 31 of the same year, was not included in the work experience of social welfare facilities, but around September 2014, Defendant B requested the head of the operation support division H of the above E office to raise the salary grade by the method of re-Definition of salary grade based on the omission of work experience as if the Defendant had worked in a social welfare organization during the above period as he had worked in a social welfare organization, and applied for additional subsidies, such as E personnel expenses, to the elderly citizens with disabilities and the public officials in charge of the above E office.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving a public official in charge of Kimpo-si from October 2014 to September 2017, obtained a total of KRW 2,428,520, such as benefits and allowances due to the promotion of salary class from Kimpo-ro to Kimpo-si, and acquired it by fraud, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the payment of subsidies by public officials in charge of Kimpo-si through a deceptive scheme.

3. Around May 15, 2016, Defendant C assaulted the victim on two occasions on the floor of hand, on the ground that the victim I, who is a person with severe disabilities in the above E, does not hear the horses of the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. The witness H’s legal statement (the Defendants raised a question about the statement of H, but the Defendants did not state the facts constituting the crime after the withdrawal of H, but did not state the above facts constituting the crime, and the Defendant and C’s actions immediately after the act as stated in the above facts constituting the crime. At the time, H’s duties and actions, the contents and attitude of the statement in this court, and the following.