The judgment below

Among the accused, the guilty part of the defendant A (including the innocent part) and the defendant B farming association corporation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the effect that Defendant A violated the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies and Subsidies related to Q Q, P, and W and the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies and that Defendant B’s agricultural partnership violated the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, Defendant A received a total of KRW 1.25 billion subsidy with respect to K projects implemented in the victim-affiliated group, and then received the said subsidy of KRW 1.25 billion from the subcontractor or design supervision business entity, Q Q, P, and W with the said subsidy of KRW 192.4 million (= KRW 40 million with KRW Q 11.10 million with KRW 40 million with KRW 42,423 million with KRW 4,500,000 with the said subsidy of KRW 1.5 billion with the fact that the lower court found the victim not guilty of the above subsidy of KRW 2,500,000 with the subsidy of KRW 2,500,000,0000 with the said subsidy of KRW 3.5.75 billion.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to Defendant A’s aiding and abetting of Violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act, Defendant A lent the name of N operated by Defendant F to Defendant F, and the electrical construction related to the instant K project (hereinafter “instant electrical construction”).

(2) Although the court below knew of the fact that it had been awarded a subcontract and executed, and concluded the above electrical construction contract with E to facilitate the violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act, the court below acquitted the defendant A and B of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below acquitted the defendant A and B of unfair sentencing.