The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and two months; imprisonment of one year; imprisonment of two years; fine of two years; fine of 40 million won; community service order of 200 hours; additional collection of 20 million won; Defendant D: imprisonment of 10 months; additional collection of 37 million won) is too unfeasible.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant A and D is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The amount of the State subsidy embezzled by the Defendant to the part of Defendant A is large, and some of which is very likely to constitute a crime by using the public corporation’s officers and employees, the public official’s giving of a breach of trust, or the giving of a bribe.

However, it is favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime, and that the defendant deposited KRW 100 million corresponding to a part of the embezzled amount in the original trial, and that the remaining amount of the embezzlement amount (60 million won) was recovered by depositing the money equivalent to the remaining embezzlement amount in the first instance trial, that is, the court below's custody is legally binding for about four months, and that the defendant's employees and family members want to have the opportunity to reflect.

In addition, if the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, including equity with the sentence to be sentenced if the case had already been tried together with the case of breach of trust for which judgment became final and conclusive, the court below's punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's improper argument of sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is without merit.

B. Even if the partial prosecutor against Defendant C considers the circumstances favorable to Defendant C on the grounds of appeal, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence within a reasonable scope, taking full account of all the circumstances regarding sentencing.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment.

Therefore, prosecutors.