A and B Imprisonment in two years and six months, Defendant C’s imprisonment in six months, Defendant D’s fine in KRW 3,000,000, and Defendant E.

Defendant

A is the representative director of the F Agricultural Partnership (the “F Agricultural Partnership in this case before the mutual change, Q,” hereinafter) in the Jeonnam-gun P. Defendant B is the representative director of the G Co., Ltd. Defendant C. Defendant C is the representative of R, Defendant D’s representative of the H Co., Ltd., Defendant E is the representative director of H Co., Ltd., Defendant F Co., Ltd., and Defendant F Co., Ltd. for the purpose of production, shipment control, sales, etc. of tin. Defendant G is a corporation established for the purpose of the production of tin, shipment control, and incidental business related thereto, and Defendant H Co., Ltd is a corporation established for the purpose of H Co., Ltd.

1. Crimes related to a new active business;

A. In the purport that Defendant A and B’s joint criminal conduct and victim interest groups created tin-based infrastructure as part of a new active project for the development of underdeveloped areas, around 2006, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry selected the “tin-based development project” as a subsidy recipient project and provided the subsidy to the said subsidized project operator with a certain percentage of the project cost as a subsidy, and then selected the instant agricultural association as a subsidized project operator.

Accordingly, from January 207 to January 2007, the victim set the project cost equivalent to a total of 1.40 billion won with respect to the detailed implementation projects of the subsidized project of this case, such as the construction of stone processing plants, etc., in accordance with the business plan submitted by the farming cooperative of this case, including the adjustment of the project cost, and the support of indirect subsidies and local self-subsidies (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "subsidies") according to the prescribed ratio (70% of the national and local expenses, approximately 30% of the self-governing expenses), the subsidized project of this case was implemented.

However, the subsidized project of this case was 30% of the self-payment, and the subsidized project operator was not able to pay the self-payment in advance to the service provider of the individual detailed project and submit evidentiary materials for it.

Defendant

A The instant case.