A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a plastic house construction business chain (oil).

Where a farmer becomes eligible for a subsidy for the installation of a facility of the Government, 40% of the total construction cost of the facility shall be borne by the farmer as his/her own share, and 60% of the construction cost may be paid as a government subsidy if the defendant who is the installer of the facility completes the construction.

Nevertheless, although the Defendant conspired with the farmer selected as the recipient of the subsidy and prosecuted the Defendant as the sole criminal defendant, the Defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime according to the request for reduction of the farmer entitled to the subsidy, and according to evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant is in a joint criminal relationship with the relevant farmer, and the recognition of such facts is not likely to cause disadvantages to the Defendant’s exercise of the right of defense. Thus, without the prosecutor’s modification of the indictment, the Defendant ex officio acknowledged the Defendant as a joint criminal relationship with the relevant farmer

As if the completion of the work was paid the full amount of the self-charges by farmers, the public officials were accused of receiving subsidies by deceiving them.

1. Around December 10, 2011, the Defendant submitted a false statement of subsidies to the public official in charge of the research and development of the Agricultural Technology Center in the Hasan-si, Hasan-si and the name-free official in charge as if he received KRW 25,600,000 from the farmer E, which is 40% of the construction cost.

However, in fact, the Defendant only received 11,400,000 won out of the self-paid charges from E by reducing part of the construction cost to be paid as self-paid charges, but operated the account as if he received the total amount of the self-paid charges.

On December 12, 2011, the Defendant completed E’s facility load construction, and then received subsidies from the victim’s profit-making viewing account (N) No. 36,097,000 won.

2. The Defendant on November 22, 201.