Defendant

A and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for Defendant B, by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for eight months and by fine for 10.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A as an auditor of a G corporation (hereinafter referred to as “G corporation”), H corporation (hereinafter referred to as “H corporation”) established for the purpose of agricultural management and incidental business, etc., a person who runs a business in the same B with the “J” restaurant located in the Chungcheong Do Office and the petitioner-gun Office after receiving subsidies from the “Support Project for Installation Expenses of Special Facilities for Environment-Friendly Livestock Products”, and Defendant B is the former representative director of the G corporation and the current director of the H corporation, and Defendant C is the current representative director of the G corporation and the director of the H corporation engaged in the agricultural business as above.

1. Joint criminal conduct by Defendant A and Defendant B

A. On November 14, 2008, the subsidies for the project to support the installation expenses of specialized stores for environment-friendly livestock products 210 million won were submitted to the Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnambuk-gu, Danbuk-gu (the representative L L (the children of Defendant B), the number of participating farmers, and the M&M group) a “business plan for the installation of specialized stores for Korea-friendly livestock products” to the Civil Service Office (the Forestry Department).

The purpose of this is to reduce interim distribution stages by directly establishing and operating the Korea-China Special Sales Complex, and to supply safe and excellent Chinese-style meat to consumers, and to increase the added value and income of farmers belonging to the same wood group.

On December 208, 2008, the Daar-do Office issued a letter of public order that “the Do Office will subsidize expenses related to the installation of specialized stores for environment-friendly livestock products.” On the ground that the Do Office requested the Do Council of the petitioner to compile an estimated expenditure budget for “the subsidization of expenses for the installation of specialized stores for Korea-friendly livestock products” but on December 17, 2008, the Do Council of the petitioner reduced the total amount of subsidies of KRW 210 million (Do 63 million, military expenses 147 million) on the ground that “the Do Council of the petitioner has no efficacy.”

As such, Defendant B and Defendant A requested that “it be able to re-establish a budget and implement the project promptly” by finding the N of the public officials in charge of the livestock forest of the Office of Appeals from time to time, and the Office of Appeals around August 2009.