1. A. The part concerning Defendant B among the judgment below is reversed.

B. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

2...

The grounds for appeal are examined only to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal, which was submitted by the defense counsel of the defendant A, by misunderstanding the facts of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles.

The defense counsel in this Part recognizes only the crime of KRW 8,828,780, which is the sum of 3,4,6,70 won in the annexed List of Crimes Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the court below that was collected from the defendant's husband's account in the name of husband AZ among the facts charged, from the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within a legitimate period and the above "statement of reasons for appeal (Supplement)". We examine the remainder

The conspiracy of occupational embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition [the remaining part of the judgment below excluding Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 at the net time of crime circulation table (3), 4, 6, and 7 attached to the judgment below is omitted, and the phrase "attached to the judgment below" is omitted]

During the period of office of the Secretary General of H (hereinafter referred to as the "H"), the fact that the defendant submitted documents related to the disbursement of project costs and finally approved is recognized.

However, around May 2015, the Defendant received a report from B to B to the effect that it is difficult to operate the ordinary expenses due to the suspension of subsidization from B and due to its difficult operation, and that part of the expenses would be returned to the form of donation. However, the Defendant did not know that B made an excessive appropriation of the project expenses in excess of the project expenses and made an excessive disbursement of the difference to the account of non-funds and converted the difference to the use for which it is irrelevant to the use of the subsidized project, and

In particular, since the Government Public Officials Ethics Committee recommended the dismissal of the Defendant to H on July 1, 2015, it did not perform its duties as a Secretary-General of H normally, and since he was dismissed from the position of the Director-General of H on November 2, 2015, he/she was disqualified from his/her eligibility or authority to participate in the disbursement of H’s project costs.

After all, the defendant did not participate in the crime of occupational embezzlement B, and there was no intention to acquire it.

On the other hand, in relation to (4) part of the crime sight list, this is applicable.