The judgment below

The part of conviction against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) In relation to the charge of occupational embezzlement, Defendant A (A) related to the charge of occupational embezzlement, according to the statement of expenditure resolution secured by the Defendant in the first instance trial, etc., the fact that the goods on the above disbursement resolution were supplied normally is confirmed.

Therefore, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement of project costs by receiving the goods manufactured in the same manner, unlike the goods indicated in the above annual expenditure resolution.

(2) No. 5 related to the daily list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below: The content of the oil manufacture cannot be confirmed from the process pilot list prepared by the R Center when using the initial production equipment.

Therefore, the Defendant did not constitute embezzlement of project costs by receiving the goods manufactured in the same manner, unlike the goods indicated in the above annual expenditure resolution.

(3) No. 8 related to the crime list (1) annexed to the judgment of the court below: R Center supplied a shoulder and shoulder with regard to the above annual, and the part supplied a shoulder shall be acquitted as it is irrelevant to this part of the charges that embezzled project funds by receiving the goods for manufacturing a wre, and thus, not guilty.

B) Defendant A, related to the receipt of bribe from W, did not instruct Defendant C to prepare activity expenses, but did not know that C received money from the supplier.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, a fine of eight million won, and an additional collection of one million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court (a fine of 10 months, a fine of 20 million won, an additional collection of KRW 26,117,145) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) In relation to Defendant A and B’s occupational embezzlement (not guilty part on the grounds), the lower court held that there was only a fact that the R Center received a shoulder from D around that time with respect to the occupational embezzlement as to No. 7 of the annexed crime List (1) as indicated in the lower judgment, and thus, the supply of goods for the manufacturing of the name.