2. The Defendants obtained the subsidies of KRW 400,000 by means of softening film production costs. Defendant B also obtained the said subsidies of KRW 62 million from the film promotion committee by forging and using the joint production contract, etc., and the Defendants attempted to have some of the remaining costs of producing and submitting the film only out of KRW 400,000,000,000,000 from the film promotion committee members without their own burden, and the Defendants attempted to prepare and submit the false details of the remaining costs of producing and distributing the film. The Defendants’ intent of the subsidy support project for film promotion was set out due to the above joint crimes, as well as the financial waste of J and Gyeong-do. Defendant A led the above joint crimes; Defendant B failed to complete the recovery of damage caused by the defraudation of KRW 62,00,00,00,000, which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, considering the fact that the Defendants actually used the above subsidies of KRW 400 million for film production, Defendant A deposited approximately KRW 80,000,000,000, which is the remaining amount with J, and all the expenses incurred in the production, distribution, screening, etc. of the film of this case, the Defendants appears to have no longer held profits acquired from joint criminal acts. The film "F" of this case was final completed and sent to the Z, and even now, the tradition and cultural characteristics of J were widely sensed to the public through Internet VOD services, and thus, the intent of the original film production and grant was achieved to the public to some extent.

Defendant B is not in the position of leading the crime of defraudation of the above KRW 400 million, and the amount paid individually from the above subsidy is his own.