1. Of the judgment below, the guilty part against Defendant A and C and the part against Defendant B, D, and E shall be reversed, respectively.

2...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A) Defendant A’s violation of the Subsidy Management Act (criminal facts No. 2 in the judgment below) (hereinafter “P”) on February 11, 201 (hereinafter “P”).

P on December 31, 1958, P is a social welfare facility established by Daegu Metropolitan City for the rehabilitation and medical care of homeless persons and disabled persons. The Daegu Metropolitan City entrusted U.S. management and operation of P on April 1, 198.

P is divided into three facilities, such as Q, R, and S (resident facilities for the disabled), while accepting them in line with the characteristics of prisoners from November 2006, P was operated in line with the characteristics of prisoners. On June 201, 2013, Q was specialized into rehabilitation facilities for the homeless, and was operated in four facilities in total.

In this context, “P” and facilities annexed thereto need to be described separately, which are rehabilitation facilities for homeless persons. As such, “P” means “P,” and “ Q,” which are rehabilitation facilities for homeless persons, refers to “P,” and refers to “ Q,” respectively.

P has already received living benefits from Daegu Metropolitan City and the achievement group in the way of a request for a hand-on, not a computer request, with respect to those living persons who do not meet the requirement for living benefits of recipients of basic living (hereinafter referred to as "non-demanded persons").

Therefore, Defendant A requested the joint Defendant C, a person in charge of livelihood benefits of P, and the joint Defendant C, who is a person in charge of livelihood benefits, to receive excessive payments, and did not intend to do so, but did not intend to receive excessive payments, and there was no report or approval from C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The point of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) is decided by the court below.