Of the judgment of the court below, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The summary of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants is 1) The basic living cost or allowance for disabled children is unclear whether the purpose of the appeal is specified. Even if the money is specified for the purpose or purpose, the Defendants may be deemed to have obtained consent from the victims to use the said money for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan for the construction of the K building, and it may be deemed that they used the said money for the purpose or purpose beyond the said purpose, and it is difficult to view the Defendants to have consumed it, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have obtained unlawful acquisition intent, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established. 2) Since Q has served as employees in K, the Defendants did not obtain the subsidy for Q from the government viewing.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable. B. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor is as follows: (a) each occupational embezzlement listed in the attached Table No. 1 and No. 2 in the attached Table No. 1 and the attached Table No. 2 is in the relation of each occupational embezzlement listed in the attached Table No. 1 and the remainder listed in the attached Table No. 2; and (b) As such, in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the Prosecutor on July 11, 201, “The point of time of the last crime of occupational embezzlement listed in the attached Table No. 2011” in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the Prosecutor on March 4, 201 (the point of time of the last crime of occupational embezzlement listed in the attached Table No. 1) appears to be the point of time of final

on the basis that the statute of limitations has not expired.

2. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the crime of occupational embezzlement listed in the annexed Table 1 (1), the Defendants of this part of the facts charged have been performing the duties of keeping and managing the basic cost of living and the bankbooks for the disabled who are paid to basic livelihood recipients and disabled children from January 2004 among the children admitted to the above K from January 204.

On the other hand, however,