All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) In the part of occupational breach of trust related to preliminary crime prevention, etc. and preliminary brand belt expenses, the Defendants did not intend to not supply preliminary brand belts, but did not constitute occupational breach of trust since the delivery was delayed due to changes in design and product defects. Thus, occupational breach of trust is not established.

B) The Defendants of the fraud related to the subsidy did not call that G viewing-related employee I should have a digital meter installed with respect to the 311 taxi belonging to the commission, and that G bears its own cost before it is established as an organization in the E Steering Committee (hereinafter “the commission of this case”) in granting digital meters subsidies, and it is reasonable to apply for the same subsidy to all taxis, regardless of whether the digital meter was installed in G, as it violates the principle of equality under the Constitution, to differentiate in the amount of the subsidy between the person who installed the digital meter and the person who is installed as an organization later.

Therefore, it can not be said that the application for subsidy and the act of receiving subsidy according to the application is fraud by deception.

2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 5 million for each of the 5 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. In fact, Defendant A paid KRW 600,000 as the purchase price of water purifiers to Defendant B’s F operated by Defendant B, and in fact left water purifiers directly from the instant commission costs. Thus, Defendant A constitutes occupational breach of trust as it constitutes occupational breach of trust.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court’s detailed explanation of the reasoning, and the Defendants’ duties pertaining to the cost of preliminary and preliminary brand beltss among the facts charged against the Defendants.