However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendant was a person who had been working as the head of the E Union located in J in Jinjin-gun from April 22, 2009 to April 22, 2012.

E Partnership was selected as a subsidized project operator of the F Construction Project implemented by the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 2010. The above subsidized project is a joint project of the E Association with the remainder of 80% borne by the State and the local government, and the portion of the association's own shares shall be deposited into an account in the name of each association member with the contributions of each association member, and the subsidized project shall not be operated unless the funds are deposited within the deposit period, and the use of the subsidized project shall not be prohibited for purposes in violation of the purpose of granting subsidies, such as managing G by the subsidized project operator for ten years.

On March 24, 2010, the Defendant prepared a G business plan containing the above contents and submitted an application for subsidies to the Gangnam-gun, but thereafter, members showed passive attitude in the above business, deposit their own contributions into the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the E association with the name of the members of the association, followed up the details of the account as if the E association run a subsidized business in the E association, and thought that the constructed G was used for an individual purpose.

On August 20, 2010, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,000,000 each in the name of H, I, J, K, L, L, M, N,O, P, Q, etc., a member of the E Union at the Daegu Daegu branch of Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Daegu, Inc., and entered the transaction details into the Nong Bank account in the name of the E Cooperatives. At that time, the Defendant made a false statement to the public official in charge of managing the said account as if the members invested their own contributions.

However, the above members did not intend to participate in the above G business, and even if the defendant received the above subsidies, he thought that he would use the subsidy as the defendant's personal business place, so the defendant did not intend to promote the above G business as a joint business with the association.