All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The court below found Defendant A guilty of embezzlement of occupational duties against the care givers of the victim H kindergarten in this case, Defendant A and B's violation of the Subsidy Management Act and the Infant Care Act as stated in the attached Table 2-2, Nos. 3 through 6, 21, and 22 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below, Defendant A and B's violation of the Infant Care Act and violation of the Infant Care Act, Defendant A and B's violation of the Infant Care Act, violation of the Subsidy Management Act and the Infant Care Act, violation of the Infant Care Act, each of the occupational embezzlement against the Republic of Korea against the Defendant A and L related victims, violation of the Subsidy Management Act, and violation of the Infant Care Act.

However, Defendants and public prosecutors appealed from each of the convictions on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or unreasonable sentencing, and since the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal part and the acquittal part of the judgment below became separate and finalized, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendants 1, A and B used eco-friendly agricultural products cultivated directly by Defendant A and B for meal services. The above Defendants spent 95,243,640 won of eco-friendly meal subsidies 54,348,870 won, which were subsidized by the above Defendants, for actual eco-friendly meal services costs, and issued false receipts inevitably due to the systematic structural inconsistency of childcare centers where childcare fees are not realized.

In addition, since food materials supplied by the customer are mixed with environment-friendly agricultural products and general agricultural products, it is not possible to specify the amount used for general meal service costs among eco-friendly meal service subsidies, and the money returned by the customer cannot be specified as eco-friendly meal service subsidies. Thus, the above defendants' subsidies are granted in a fraudulent way.