All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants led to mistake of facts by the police.

Witness

In light of the S’s statement, it is found guilty of Defendant B, C, and D’s violation of the Act on Fraud and Subsidy Management due to the joint criminal conduct with Defendant B, C, and D among the facts charged against Defendant A and of Defendant B, C, and D.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above part of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the defendant A: one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for determination of the assertion of mistake of facts.

Since each police interrogation protocol against the defendants was prepared by each of the defendants, it is not admissible as evidence for each of the defendants.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s given that new sentencing materials related to the favorable circumstances in the trial were not submitted, and the grounds for sentencing alleged by a prosecutor are already considered in the lower court’s determination of punishment.