Defendant

All appeals filed by C and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In regard to Defendant C’s violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies for Non-Use of the Subsidies for Non-Use of the Subsidies (hereinafter “The Subsidy Act”), the lower court found Defendant C guilty of this part of the charges, on the ground that the government subsidy subject to the Subsidy Act was deposited into the Do subsidy and the Gun subsidy, and thus, it could not be specified in this part of the subsidies for non-use of the subsidies for non-use of the subsidies for non-use of the subsidies. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Defendants’ fraud against the victim petition group and the violation of the Act on the Payment of State Subsidies due to the receipt of State subsidies by unlawful means, the court below acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B and C (Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 1 year and 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 120 hours of community service) is too uneasable and unfair.

B. Defendant C’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant C’s violation of the Act on Subsidies for Non-Use of Subsidies for Non-Use of Subsidies, and Defendant C’s summary of this part of the facts charged is the excreta collection and transportation business.