When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a representative of the Gyeonggi-do Livestock Cooperative and is a person who operates a F farm in E.

The defendant has conspiredd with a veterinarian and a sales intermediary to acquire livestock disaster insurance proceeds operated with 50% of the government subsidies.

On November 28, 2012, the Defendant, within the F farm located in E, issued a false medical certificate that only the number of the lawsuit can be urgently slaughtered after informing a veterinarian H of the fact that the milk (this ticket number: G) owned by the Defendant was not a non-permanent cattle (beb), and prepared a false contract for the purpose of submitting to the insurance company even though the Defendant did not sell I in fact the non-permanent cattle (bebbeb), and received on December 6, 2012 from the damaged agricultural insurance company, the Defendant affixed the photograph of the cattle seated so as to display it to the insurance company, and received on December 6, 2012 from the damaged agricultural insurance company, the Defendant received on December 1, 2012.

Therefore, it received KRW 1,154,060 as insurance money on December 11, 2012 from the injured insurance company that believed this as a genuine document and received KRW 2,750,860 in total four times as in the crime sight table until April 3, 2013.

In this respect, livestock disaster insurance money was acquired through illegal means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, K and L;

1. Entry of part of the witness H in the second public trial record;

1. Copies of summary order 18308 high-ranking court 2015 high-ranking court;

1. Documents claiming insurance proceeds;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel denied the facts charged of this case, each of the instant lawsuit was prepared by the veterinarian H, etc., but did not slaughter due to non-permanent cattle, although the contract was not entered into directly with the sale and purchase, the defendant prepared a false sales contract and submitted it as a document claiming insurance proceeds, and the victim paid insurance proceeds in trust with the documents submitted by the defendant.