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

Defendant

A is a person engaged in agriculture.

No direct payment for agricultural income preservation shall be made by fraud or other improper means.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, within the E-Myeon office located in Kimpo-si from January 2012 to December 2015, 2015, applied for direct payments of farmland in Kimpo-si F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) entrusted by the Korea Rural Community Corporation’s Kimpo-si branch from Kimpo-si to Kimpo-si, and applied for direct payments of agricultural income preservation amounting to KRW 9,303,210, as if he actually cultivated the farmland of this case, even after re-leased the farmland to other K.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of a witness, L, M, or N;

1. Some of the witness K’s legal statement;

1. Statement made to K in the police statement;

1. A report on investigation (a search including anO's stations, etc.);

1. Details of farmland rental business-related data (report on the conclusion of a lease contract) and deposits into suspect payment accounts;

1. Register of custody 2015 (the defendant and his defense counsel, and the defendant have cultivated the farmland of this case together with K;

K asserts that the farmland of this case is not about to hold office.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by health stand and evidence, the defendant is recognized to have cultivated the farmland in this case only by K while in office and there is no fact that the defendant cultivated the farmland in this case. Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

① The witness L, M, and N consistently viewed K to cultivate the farmland of this case from the investigative agency to the present court, but the Defendant stated that it is not appropriate to cultivate the farmland of this case.

(2) The witness K cultivated the farmland of this case with the defendant in this court.

Although testimony was made, the investigative agency has cultivated the farmland of this case from the defendant while in office, and the rice produced in the farmland of this case had been produced by the defendant, and he was 1.5 million won when discussing from the defendant.