A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) Fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (the guilty part of the lower judgment), Defendant 1’s subsidies for projects to jointly create livestock excreta in 201 that were supported by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Fishery Food (hereinafter “the instant subsidized projects”) (hereinafter “the instant subsidized projects”) were KRW 3 billion. The Defendant’s payment of the construction cost of the instant subsidized projects exceeds KRW 3 billion. As such, the Defendant was entitled to the full payment of KRW 3 billion subsidies by submitting the details of the actual construction cost.

However, in the process of applying for the payment of construction expenses, the Defendant submitted an electrical construction cost of KRW 20 million with I (hereinafter “I”) to the Defendant, taking into account the hidden cost, etc., and only when there is a defect in the application for a subsidy, this is merely a case where there is a defect in the application for a subsidy. However, Article 17(5) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Application for Disposition) does not deny the payment of subsidies, and Article 17(5) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Application for Disposition) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Application for Disposition) provides that, if there is a defect, such as lack of documents prepared, the administrative agency must request the applicant

There is only a duty to demand correction and supplementation according to such duty.

Therefore, since the Defendant was able to receive all the above subsidies even if it was not softened, it cannot be said that he paid a certain amount of the electrical construction, and it cannot be said that he did not commit deception against the NAFF, and that there was an intention to acquire it by deception against the Defendant.

It is difficult to see that there is a relationship between the Defendant’s act and the Defendant’s act and the Defendant’s act with respect to the payment of KRW 163,548,00 and KRW 44,06,00 in total of KRW 207,614,00.

shall not be effective.

Even if it is not so, the amount obtained by the defendant due to the above deception shall not be 207,614,000 won, but 20 million won for the overfilled construction cost.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b).