Defendant

B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) In relation to Defendant B’s act of purchasing L from Defendant B, a disqualified person, Defendant B’s non-qualified person, the lower court deemed Defendant B as a public official in applying penal provisions pursuant to Article 59 subparag. 2 and 4 of the Salt Industry Promotion Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to be deemed as a public official by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In light of the facts charged, the Defendants were acquitted on all the grounds.

2) Although Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts related to occupational embezzlement through Defendant B’s M, or misunderstanding of the legal principles, and embezzlement of KRW 3780,00 through M, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the relevant part by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) As long as Defendant B received money from an O association under the pretext of the receipt of Defendant B’s benefits, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged, or acquitted Defendant B of the relevant portion by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it was not allowed to receive remuneration.

4) Although Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts related to the violation of the Act on Occupational Embezzlement and Subsidy Management, or the misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part on the grounds) acknowledged that Defendant A conspireds with B, C, and subsidies embezzlement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the relevant part, acquitted Defendant

B. Defendant B and prosecutor’s argument that the sentence of sentencing is unfair because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence imposed on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles or mistake of facts

A. The part concerning the acceptance of the ex post facto bribery by Defendant B and the part concerning the grant of the bribe by Defendant D 1) by the lower court

1. Defendant B.