Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the head of Silsan City K, the representative director of L corporation, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the defendant C, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the defendant D, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the defendant E, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, the defendant F, Qba, the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation, and the director of the corporation, the defendant G, the director of the corporation, and the director of the corporation, the director of the corporation and the director of the corporation

In the Asia-si, the project for the relocation of the SDR training site to be implemented in 2006 was to grant subsidies to the residents of the seven neighboring areas (K, M, N,O, P, Q, R) to create the "TTT livestock complex" for residents in order to avoid the resistance of the residents as the residents oppose the project.

Accordingly, on March 20, 2005, the Defendants established a “L corporation” for the purpose of the Korea-Japan Livestock Industry with the support of Asan City, and promoted the ‘Korea-Japan Joint Breeding Complex' in 2005.

As a project promoted with the project cost of KRW 3 billion and KRW 3.3 billion, the Defendants were not able to pay KRW 300 million for each side of each project. In fact, the Defendants were not able to pay KRW 300 million for each side of each project, even though they newly constructed a stable at the minimum unit price, they claimed progress payment for Asan Viewing the construction cost as calculated by U.S. architectural firm that designed the plan of 7 side of each 7 side of the construction cost, and claimed progress payment for the construction cost, and received progress payment and used the difference as the corporate operating cost and operating cost for each village of the village of Korea.

1. Defendant A

A. On August 1, 2006, the Defendant: (a) invested and executed construction costs of KRW 133,315,268 of V stable 1,144.8 square meters (346.302 square meters) in Asan-si; (b) however, (c) added up KRW 209,01,882 to construction costs; (d) filed a claim for subsidies with the public official in charge of Asan-si in charge of Asan-si with evidentiary documents, such as false tax invoices, and (e) around August 16, 2006, the Defendant filed a claim for subsidies with the public official in charge of Asan-si in charge of Asan-si.