All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 5,00,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A’s fraud (A) did not comply with the standards set forth in the O management, operation, and consignment contract concluded between Defendant A (hereinafter “B”) and the victim’s creative city (hereinafter “instant contract”) (i.e., food waste recycling rate, the ratio of narrow miscellaneouss anticipated to occur in the process of disposal, the type of recycled feed, etc.).

In order to reduce the disposal costs, the above Defendant violated the above criteria, which are important parts of the contract of this case, and received the entrusted operation expenses without reporting them properly, and thus, Defendant A is recognized as a crime of fraud.

In addition, the amount of fraud in the facts charged of this case was produced even though the defendant did not actually produce it.

Since it is calculated on the basis of the cost necessary for manufacturing the amount of liquid feed, etc. which has been falsely reported, the calculation method is not unfair.

B) In full view of the Defendants’ violation of the Feed Management Act, taking into account the statements made by the investigative agency, the contents of the service contract made between L and Defendant B and the details of the payment of wages, Defendant A employed L as a feed safety manager.

As such, the Defendants can not be seen as violating the Feed Management Act.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant A’s fraud in light of the records, the lower court, based on diverse circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, by deceiving Defendant A from creative view.

It can not be seen that the original market price paid the entrusted operating expenses due to the deception of the above defendant.

Defendant A may not be seen, and Defendant A may not be seen.