All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants recognized the defendants' mistakes, the fact that all the Defendants did not have the same criminal record, the fact that considerable portion of the subsidies obtained through deception appears to have been actually invested in the instant construction, and the State and local governments received insurance money from Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and recovered

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants by deceiving a large amount of subsidies by using the false deposit slip, etc., and the nature of the crime is bad. Although the State and local governments recovered the damage with the payment of insurance money, the Defendants did not have made efforts to recover the damage, such as repaying the obligation to reimburse the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., and therefore, the damage caused by the Defendants’ crime is ultimately a transfer to the general public who uses the guarantee insurance (it is difficult to recover the damage of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd in light of the current progress of the auction and the amount of claims by the senior mortgagee and other creditors, even though the auction on the factory and the site of this case is in progress, it is difficult to recover the damage of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. in light of the situation of the progress of the auction and the amount of claims by the senior mortgagee and other creditors) and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing in this case, it cannot be said that the punishment of the lower court against the Defendants is excessively

The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the original judgment clearly states the following errors, and such errors are corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as follows: 1.