All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts.

1) The list of crimes committed against Defendant A as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “the list of crimes”).

(A) N voluntarily led to the commission of a crime, i.e., occupational embezzlement and violation of the Subsidy Management Act, listed in Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 7, by attending an investigative agency three times, having been investigated, and having been directly submitted, thereby having admitted his/her mistake.

Since there is little room for false entry into the N's statement in the N's investigative agency, and it can be recognized that there are specific and external circumstances to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the statement, the protocol of interrogation of N's statement and N's statement prepared by N shall meet the requirements of Article 314 of the

B) In full view of the statements written by N, the N’s statement, and the statement written by AH hotel managerO, AVel operator P, and AW restaurant operator Q, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the crime as stated in No. 1, 2, and 4 of the crime list in collusion with N. (C) on the premise that the evidence of the N’s interrogation protocol is admitted, WW, who is the operator of the VM, stated that the Defendant prepared the content of accommodation expenses, not W, who is the operator of the pent, but W, who was requested by the Defendant before the police investigation, and that “the statement that the amount of accommodation expenses will be settled,” and that the credibility of the statement is very low, such as the reversal of the statement about the amount of accommodation expenses.

Therefore, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime as stated in No. 7 of the list of crimes.

2) Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust against Defendant A) consistently stated that Defendant A reported to the Defendant, sought an inquiry from the Association according to the Defendant’s instructions, and that Defendant A was going to commit the instant crime.

C. .