The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. The lower court’s failure to render a judgment of forfeiture regarding No. 24, 32, 33, and 34 was unlawful.

2. Determination

A. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the wrongful argument of sentencing, in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The crime of obtaining subsidies through fraudulent payment of subsidies ultimately requires strict punishment in that the occurrence of financial loss to the State and the occurrence of damage to the people, and that the amount of fraud and the amount of fraudulent payment by fraud and the amount of fraudulent payment by the instant crime are considerably large amounts disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant shows an attitude to recognize and reflect each of the crimes in this case, and there is no substantial benefit acquired by the defendant due to each of the crimes in this case.

The Defendant appears to have no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case, and comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of each of the instant offenses, means and methods of and methods for the instant offenses, and all of the sentencing factors in the process of trial, such as the circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, or is too unreasonable.

B. As to the assertion of omission in confiscation, No. 24 is a CD which copied the accounting files of H Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant. No. 32,33,34 of the evidence is a sales discount certificate, purchase contract, quotation, delivery letter, which was stored in the Defendant’s office and residence computers, external meri, etc.