beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B's imprisonment of 6 months, Defendant C's imprisonment of 6 months and Defendant D's imprisonment of 6 months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Basic Facts] Defendant A is the trade name of “F farm (area of approximately 3,390 square meters),” Defendant B is the trade name of “H farm” (area of approximately 4,430 square meters) in Chungcheongnamnam G; Defendant C is the livestock raiser operating a swine shed in Chungcheongnamnam I with the trade name of “J farm (area of approximately 2,520 square meters),” and Defendant D is the 6th class public official in charge of the construction of livestock shed facilities in Chungcheongnamnam-do in Chungcheongnamnam-do from around 2005 to June 2015.
According to the instant subsidy program, a large-scale company farmer (a livestock shed size of at least 2,400 square meters) did not receive a national subsidy and only received a low interest rate loan, but a quasi-professional farmer or a quasi-professional farmer (a livestock shed size of less than 2,400 square meters) received 30% of the total project cost as a national subsidy.
[Criminal facts]
1. Violation of the Act on Fraud and Subsidy Management by Defendant A or D;
A. Although Defendant A, who operates a F farm as seen above, was unable to receive a subsidy because he fell under a company farming, Defendant A did not attach a permit to the livestock industry with the livestock industry area stated at the time of the application for the instant subsidy program, and did not reduce the size of the said livestock shed in the name of his family member after being selected as the subsidized project operator, and was recruited with Defendant D, who is a public official in charge, to receive a subsidy by making a report.
B. On March 7, 2014, Defendant A applied for a subsidy program with the total project cost of KRW 1,410,000,000 ( KRW 423,000,000 national treasury subsidies, KRW 705,000,000, and KRW 282,00,000,000) at the above LA military office, and without attaching a certificate of livestock business permit, Defendant A did not enter any area in the current “area (registration area of livestock farming business)” column without attaching a certificate of livestock business. Defendant D had Defendant A selected as a subsidy program operator by falsely reporting the area of the said livestock shed as the size of the said livestock shed, and Defendant A had the aforementioned livestock shed on July 1, 2014.