1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

2. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

3.Provided, That.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the crime of occupational embezzlement by Defendant A’s repayment of loans) Defendant A embezzled the above school budget without deliberation and resolution by the board of directors under the pretext of repaying the loans to Defendant A’s wife, and there is sufficient evidence to support this. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view Defendant A’s act as an embezzlement to realize an intent of unlawful acquisition. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below sentenced the Defendants of unfair sentencing (the crime of occupational embezzlement by Defendant A: imprisonment with labor for one year (the crime of occupational embezzlement and attorney fees in the market), six months (the crime of occupational embezzlement by receiving the special lecture fees), probation period, two years, community service order 200 hours, six months, six months, suspended imprisonment with prison labor, one year, and one year, one year of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order).

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant did not know that 28 students listed in the annexed List of Crimes were subject to removal from the military register and had Q Q submit a list of students including the above students to the Jung-Eup Office of Education attached to the subsidy application. Thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain deception. Nevertheless, the lower court accepted the facts charged against the Defendant and found the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the facts charged against Defendant A is judged as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts) The summary of the facts charged is recognized in G at regular Eup around August 23, 2005.