All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 4 months of imprisonment, one year of probation, one year of community service, 120 hours, and 5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (Defendant B)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court since new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial, and all of the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, environment, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is not deemed to have been too weak or too unreasonable (the Defendant stated that the lower court did not sufficiently recover from damage on the grounds of sentencing). However, it is alleged that the damage caused by the crime of this case was unlawful since the Defendants received subsidies under the pretext of subsidies, and the amount was not recovered, and therefore there is no error of law in the lower court’s statement that the damage was not sufficiently recovered, and thus, it cannot be said that all of the Defendants and the prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed as per Disposition under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.