The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant A and the defendant B is dismissed.

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence against Defendant C (unfair sentencing) of the lower court is too unreasonable (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service).

B. Each of the defendants of the court below's sentence (unfair sentencing) is unfair because it is so far as the sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment; three years of probation; three years of imprisonment; two years of probation; two years of probation; one year and six months of probation; three years of probation; and one year and six years of probation; one year and six months of probation; and one time of community service work 160 hours) is too unfford.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant A and Defendant B, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the above Defendants, such as that the government’s contribution provided for the performance of national research and development tasks is obtained by defraudation, and the crime is inferior, and that the amount of defraudation is about KRW 350 million,00,000.

On the other hand, Defendant A is an initial offender, Defendant B has no other history of punishment in addition to punishment once by fine, and there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the above Defendants deposited the total amount of the acquired money, and the above Defendants have both recognized the crime of this case and are against their mistake, etc. are favorable circumstances to Defendant A and Defendant B.

B. In addition, taking into account the degree of participation of the above Defendants and the fact that Defendant A had an opportunity to reflect one’s mistake by being detained for at least two months, taking into account the following circumstances, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, etc. of the above Defendants, the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants is deemed appropriate as a punishment within the scope of the discretion for sentencing.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of improper sentencing against the above defendants is without merit.

B. As to the illegal assertion of sentencing against Defendant C and the prosecutor, Defendant C only has the record of having been punished three times as a fine, and was punished for the same offense.