1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the court of first instance deleted its explanation about the part excluded from the object of this court's trial as seen earlier, and cites this case's reasoning as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except with the addition of the following additional determination.

2. The Defendants asserts to the effect that “The entire amount embezzled shall not be deemed as the Plaintiff’s damages, as the amount embezzled was re-invested and used in line with the purpose of subsidization.”

Therefore, according to the above Operating Convention (No. 1) and the Plaintiff’s Ordinance on the Management of Subsidies (Evidence No. 2) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff, within budgetary limits, provided “part of the operating expenses for C, such as personnel expenses, vehicle operation expenses, website operation expenses, and other expenses approved through consultation, and the Defendant Company cannot use them for any other purpose (Article 6 and Article 11 of the Convention), and the Defendant Company may suspend subsidies or request the return of the subsidies already provided (Article 11(1) and Article 17 of the Convention), and even if the Defendant Company could not use the subsidies provided by the Plaintiff for any other purpose than the prescribed purpose, the fact that the Plaintiff was found guilty of arbitrary embezzlement by using the Defendant Company’s ordinary operating expenses, etc.

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff’s subsidy does not intend to operate C business, as otherwise alleged by the Defendants, even if the Defendants’ funds have already been disbursed in connection with C operation after the crime of embezzlement was established as alleged by the Defendants, it is merely an input of one’s own funds to his own business, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that part of the embezzlement funds has been re-invested with C operation funds as alleged by the Defendants, and it is re-invested as otherwise alleged by the Defendants.