The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A, and the part against Defendant B on the charge of fraud around February 201, 201.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court sentenced the Defendant-A to dismiss the public prosecution regarding each of the assault committed against the Defendant-A, and the Defendants appealed against the guilty part of the lower judgment, and the Defendants’ appeal regarding the part other than the dismissed part of the lower judgment, and the dismissed part of the public prosecution not appealed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor was separated

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part of the judgment below excluding the dismissal of the above indictment.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles ① Of the lower judgment, in the case of the primary charge of Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement, the lower court did not have a resolution as to the disbursement of expenses, as otherwise alleged in the Defendant’s reasoning, and there was a resolution.

Even if the amount exceeding KRW 10 million paid as statutory brokerage commission and access road usage fee exceeds KRW 10 million, the crime of embezzlement is established.

② In the case of Defendant B’s fraud on February 201, 201, it is difficult to view Defendant B as exempt Defendant B from liability on the grounds that there is no proof of a public offering relationship with BT, the representative of the kindergarten at the time, and it is difficult to believe that there was no public offering relationship. Therefore, Defendant B is guilty of fraud.

③ In the case of the fraud of Defendant A and C among the judgment below, the Defendants appointed a defense counsel to resolve the problem upon accusation from the Gangwon-do Office of Education, and Defendant A applied for a false payment order without having a right to claim against the victim F church (hereinafter “F church”). Defendant C conspired to change the address for the receipt of mail in one’s name, thereby deceiving the court, thereby fraud is established.

2) The sentence of the lower court (in the case of Defendant A, 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 1 year of imprisonment in the case of Defendant B, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of community service) is too unhued.