1. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant C, A, and B are the representatives of the E farming association corporations, Defendant A is a person who operates C, a company selling an unmanned air-going pest control machine, and Defendant B is the former president of Defendant D.

The victim Jeonnam-do and the victim I implemented the "Projects to Improve the competitiveness of food crops" to strengthen the competitiveness through reducing the cost of producing food crops in 2016, and as part of the above projects, support the purchase of wide-area pest control devices such as unmanned helicopter (Do 15%, military expense 35%, and 50% of self-payment).

Defendant

C, based on the experience of serving as the representative of the said legal entity and in charge of the unmanned air pollution response work, C intended to purchase the unmanned air pollution response device with the subsidy knowing the fact that the subsidy was paid at the time of purchase of the unmanned air pollution response device, but the price of the unmanned helicopter was high so that C would not be able to bear the self-charges, it was demanded to request the Defendant A and B to apply for the subsidy in consultation with D, which is the purchasing entity of the unmanned air pollution response device, with the intent to make sure that it was able to bear the burden, and the Defendant A and B responded to this.

Accordingly, Defendant C filed an application with the I Agency located in South Korea on January 28, 2016 for a project to enhance the competitiveness of food crops with the aim of submitting a written estimate for anti-air pollution response to the amount of KRW 220,000,000,000 from the estimated price under the name of the D Co., Ltd., and submitting an application to the effect that Defendant C would bear KRW 120,000,000,000 out of the estimated price. The victim I selected E farming association as a person eligible for subsidies on March 4, 2016.

However, in 2016, Defendant C was not a new purchase of an unmanned anti-air pollution response device, but had already purchased an unmanned anti-air pollution response device from Defendant C in the form of a new purchase of the pest response device in 2015. The actual purchase price was KRW 22 million.