If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

[Basic Facts] B is the representative director of corporation D for the purpose of constructing greenhouses in Macheon-si, and the defendant is the person who has been selected as a subsidy program operator for the improvement of the quality of facilities promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Livestock Industry.

The project for the improvement of the quality of the above facilities shall be selected as the subsidized project operator of the facility for the modernization and expansion and rebuilding of the facilities, and part of the total project cost shall be subsidized by the State or the local government, and the remainder shall be naturally borne by the subsidized project operator and shall continue the project.

Although the Defendant and B knew that the subsidized project operator should bear part of the project cost as above, the Defendant and the subsidized project operator pretended that the Defendant would bear the cost of the subsidized project operator, and attempted to receive the excessive subsidy appropriated by the State and the relevant local government by planting the relevant construction cost.

[2] Around June 2012, the Defendant was selected as a subsidized project operator of the victim so-called the victim so-called “victim,” and entered into a contract for the construction of the facility with a large amount of KRW 91,56,000 (the State and local subsidies of KRW 42,90,000,000, and the Defendant’s own contributions of KRW 48,66,000) for the total project cost of KRW 91,56,00,000.

B, even though the Defendant actually deposited the funds of D company in a disguised manner as if the Defendant paid all of its own contributions under the above contract, the amount equivalent to KRW 33,66,00,000, excluding the amount equivalent to KRW 15,000 actually borne by the Defendant’s account in the name of D company was deposited in the name of the Defendant.

After June 2012, B submitted a subsidy application which contains a written confirmation of deposit without passbook, etc. as the defendant actually bears all of his own contributions to viewing by strike.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with B, thereby deceiving the victim as above, and is a subsidy for the project cost around June 2012 from the damaged person.