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

Defendant

A as a director and an agent of "O", the general sales of various agricultural machinery, such as metropolitan pest control devices produced in mM, who had been engaged in sales business of "N" in the south area. Defendant B is the representative director of " Q agricultural corporation" in Y in Y in Y in YE, Defendant C is the representative director of "S agricultural corporation" in Y in YE in YE, the representative director of "SU agricultural corporation" in YE, Defendant D is the representative director of "UU agricultural corporation" in YE in YE, YE. Defendant E is the representative director of "WU corporation of agricultural corporation" in YE.

The government has induced the wide-areaization of eco-friendly agricultural complexes, and has provided subsidies on the condition that the pollution response effects are enhanced by joint prevention work using large agricultural machinery, and farmers or farming corporations that intend to purchase metropolitan pollution response devices pay a certain amount of self-payment.

Defendant

A, when soliciting the representative director of each farming corporation to purchase a metropolitan pest control period, he paid either in advance to a borrowed-name account or to refund all or part of the self-paid charges that the farming corporation has received from the farming corporation, and subsequently, after pretending to meet the requirements for subsidies, A would obtain subsidies by claiming the price of a metropolitan pest control period to the government and local governments by claiming for subsidies and submitting relevant evidential data to the government and local governments, as the self-paid charges are actually borne by himself on behalf of the farming corporation.

1. Defendant A and Defendant B’s co-principal Defendants are presumed to have paid KRW 24,00,000, out of KRW 60,000,00 to be paid to receive subsidies from Gisung-gun in purchasing a metropolitan pest control device on or around January 2009, as if they were to have satisfied lawful requirements, and upon receiving a claim for a refund of the amount of the metropolitan pest control device, Defendant A would have paid KRW 36,00,000 to Defendant B.