All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (an amount of four million won) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B merely received a report on the execution of subsidies ex post from the joint Defendant A and approved it. Defendant B had functional control over the instant occupational embezzlement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 4 million) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the argument and record of the instant judgment regarding Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to change ex post facto sentencing in the trial.

B. (1) The Defendant, at the court of original instance, led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court of original instance, but is dissatisfied with the purport of misunderstanding of the legal principles. The Defendant’s confession made in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate court. The admissibility or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the ground that the confession made in the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate court.

In determining the credibility of confessions, the credibility of confessions should be determined in consideration of the following circumstances, such as whether the contents of confessions are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of confessions, what is the motive or reason of confessions, and what is the background leading up to confessions, and what does not conflict with or conflict with confessions among other evidence (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008; 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, which are the following circumstances, such as preparation of business plans, budget application documents, and execution of subsidies.