The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and B, and the part concerning Defendant C, excluding the part concerning Defendant C’s non-guilty.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) As to occupational embezzlement, Defendant A did not have been actually involved in X at the protected workplace, and there was no fact that Defendant A withdrawn the benefits of the disabled and used them, nor purchased gold.

B) There is no legal regulation to use disability allowances for specific purposes in relation to occupational embezzlement of disability allowances and violations of the laws regarding the welfare of children due to the use of disability allowances for purposes other than the purpose of occupational embezzlement and disability allowances, and the parent’s consent was obtained to use disability allowances as travel expenses

Cambodian travel was revoked and used as travel expenses.

Defendant

A's act constitutes a justifiable act.

C) As to the violation of the Social Welfare Business Act due to the use of subsidies for any purpose other than its original purpose, the crime of violation of the Social Welfare Business Act for any purpose other than its original purpose is not a single crime.

Defendant

It is unreasonable to recognize the whole time of involvement as a single crime and reject the prosecution and argument.

(2) Defendant A was not involved in the duties of the protected workplace.

AT, AU, AV, AW, and AX are merely citizens of residential facilities S, who have worked in accordance with the protection work site for the protection of the disabled. AY was employed as a sanitary source, not as a house house house house house house house house house house house house house.

AZ actually worked as a living leader and was concurrently engaged in the business of the corporation.

Ultimately, the Defendant does not use the subsidy for any purpose other than its original purpose.

2) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

B. Defendant B’s punishment is heavy.

(c)

Defendant

C1) misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant C did not have a habit of violence.

2) Defendant C did not have inflicted any injury on BI.

3) The lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is hot.

(d)

Defendant

D1) There is no fact that Defendant D conspired with Defendant A regarding a violation of the Social Welfare Business Act.

AZ is an employee of the residential facility and has concurrently performed the affairs of the corporation.