The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. The progress of the instant case and the scope of the court’s trial

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case No. 2016 Highest 980, the lower court sentenced the Defendant and the Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) of the trial co-defendant B (hereinafter “B”) prior to the return to the lower court for a period of two years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment for one year for the remainder except for the joint occupational embezzlement related to subsidies for entry to AI and AL, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty for the above joint occupational embezzlement.

B. As to the aforementioned acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing on the part of the aforementioned conviction.

(c)

In the trial before the remand, the prosecutor changed the contents of the following 3.3.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remanding of the case is found guilty of the following three (3) and (4) of the facts charged in the case No. 2016 Highest 980, as seen above, joint occupational embezzlement related to subsidies for entry to AI and AL, and joint occupational embezzlement in around 2009, and each selective addition to the facts charged in the case No. 2016 Highest 1047, and each of the facts charged in the case was found guilty. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one (1) year.

(d)

The defendant appealed against the judgment of the court before remand on the grounds of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The Supreme Court has erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the judgment before remanding the case concerning "the fraud part relating to the grant for entry to the AI and AL of the ice player in 2009."

The judgment of the court below and the remaining part of the facts charged (excluding the part of each occupational embezzlement for which prosecution was instituted alternatively) are found guilty. The above reversed part and the remaining guilty part were sentenced as one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, they should be reversed together. The part of each occupational embezzlement for which prosecution was instituted alternatively against the defendant is instituted is each of the above.