All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service hours of 80 hours) by the lower court is too unfluent and unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including Defendant B, K, and P’s statements in each court below judgment, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case in collusion with Defendant A, but it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone conspired with the Defendant A to commit the same crime as indicated in the instant facts charged, without any reasonable doubt, on the grounds that the Defendant committed the same crime as indicated in the instant facts charged.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the instant charges were acquitted.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant did not agree with the victim so that he/she would be subject to the judgment of the lower court regarding Defendant A’s unfair argument of sentencing, and that he/she does not seem to have made efforts to recover from damage, and that there were two or more different criminal records of the same kind of fine and a series of criminal records.

However, the Defendant used most of the embezzled money for G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and appears to have not been significant in the personal profit-making part, the Defendant’s 6th disabled person, G and the victim, etc. on April 24, 2014, as the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Gohap 44947, 2013 Gohap 551575 (Counterclaim), “G” up to May 31, 2014.