Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Justice] On August 12, 2014, Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one-year imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Chuncheon District Court, which became final and conclusive on August 20, 2014.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant

A is a farmer who cultivates metlon in Yang-gu, Gangwon-do and one parcel, and is an assistant business operator of the “E business” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subsidized business”) implemented by both-gun, Gangwon-do, and Defendant B is a person who actually operated the “F” (G in the name of the business owner).

In promoting the instant subsidized project, the victim Yang-gu group provided subsidies of KRW 90,000,00 for project costs of KRW 150,000 for project costs of KRW 150,000 for project costs ( KRW 45,00,000 for Do-do expenses of KRW 45,000 for military expenses, and KRW 45,000 for military expenses), and promoted the rest of project costs of KRW 60,000 for 0 for 150,000 for Do-do projects.

Accordingly, Defendant B concluded a H installation contract with Defendant A for the construction cost of KRW 158,876,000, around October 201, by offering the instant subsidy to Defendant A at a discount, and proposing that Defendant B did not perform the work of installing a bar.

Defendant

A on January 3, 2012, at the Yang-gu Office of Agricultural Technology Center in Yang-gu, Yang-gu, Yang-gun, Seoul, the 38-ro 15,00,000, and at the office of Yang-gun, the public official in charge, I paid 150,000,000 won in total as the cost of H installation work, and at the expense of 60,000,000 among them, Defendant A submitted a certificate of deposit in the account in the name of the above G (Account Number:J) around November 4, 201, with the documents based on the self-paid charges, around December 15, 201, the sum of KRW 24,00,000,000 and KRW 12,00,000,000,000, and KRW 6086,708,008,00,000 on December 19, 2011

However, in fact, the Defendants did not have the ability to pay their own contributions at the time of Defendant A, and would be entitled to receive the refund as the subsidized project in this case.