beta
Text
Defendant
A, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, by imprisonment for 4 months, and by fine for Defendant E.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A on January 14, 2016, the Daegu District Court rendered a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for fraud, etc. on September 1, 2016.
Defendant
A is the representative director of corporation E (hereinafter referred to as “E”), and Defendant E is a corporation established for the purpose of repairing and repairing cultural heritage, and cutting off business. Defendant B is well known of theO located in N at the time of racing, Defendant C is well known before Q in Kimcheon-si P, and Defendant D is the chief of the office of general administration of Q B.
Defendant
A, with the knowledge that when performing construction works for restoration, repair, etc. of cultural heritage, an assistant operator meeting the requirements will bear a certain ratio of the construction cost, the remainder will be granted as a subsidy from national expenses, local expenses, etc., and in collusion with the chief knowledge of the temple allocated the subsidy budget for the repair works of cultural heritage from the victim racing city, A had the mind that the victim racing would receive a subsidy from the victim racing city by applying for the repair works of cultural heritage by pretending that the inspection completed the subsidy budget has been paid in the temple.
1. On July 15, 2010, Defendants A and B filed an application for subsidies to the effect that “the amount of KRW 20 million out of the total project cost of KRW 100 million shall be borne by the O and the remainder of the project cost shall be paid by the O as subsidies” with respect to the racing viewing cultural properties and “O- surrounding maintenance work” in the amount of KRW 260,000,000,000,000 out of the total project cost of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
However, in fact, Defendant B did not have the intention to bear KRW 20 million for the person to be borne by theO even if the above O-O maintenance work was implemented with subsidies, and Defendant A, who was in charge of the construction of the above O, made the deposit of the amount equivalent to the money to be borne by theO, thereby pretending to pay the O’s own shares.