Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1 million.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

The Yangyang-gun implemented a project to support new construction of livestock pens C in order to revitalize the Korea-China industry, foster it as a major income industry for agriculture, and secure a stable foundation for fostering full-time Chinese farmers, and newly build a stable amounting to 78 million won for each farm household, and paid subsidies of 50% of the Yangyang-gun's cost (military funds of KRW 39 million, self-charge 39 million, and KRW 39 million).

A subsidy program operator who receives a subsidy shall use the subsidy only for the purpose of newly constructing a stable with a size of 396m2, and shall not use it for constructing other buildings, such as a stable or compost in excess of the above area, and shall submit it as evidentiary data with a statement of accounts stating the true details, receipts, tax invoices, etc. when the project is completed.

Defendant

A around September 21, 2015, when a person engaged in livestock farming in Yangyang-gun D, and E, the Defendant’s wife, was determined as the subject of the above subsidy grant project, upon request from the Defendant B (FH) who was well aware of it on October 27, 2015, the Defendant B, who was the construction business operator who was well aware of it, decided to deposit the construction cost, including the self-paid cost, and receive the subsidy by means of making a false document and return the money.

After that, around February 22, 2016, Defendant A submitted to Defendant B an application form, remittance certificate, construction contract, etc. to the effect that Defendant A, upon applying for a subsidy in the name of Yangyang-gun Agricultural Technology Center located in 2258 as well as in the name of Yangyang-gun Agricultural Technology Center, Defendant A transferred 39 million won of his own shares to Defendant B.

However, in fact, the Defendants planned to newly build a stable with subsidies of 396m2 in addition to a stable with a size of 396m2, and prepared false documents as if Defendant B continued the construction work and received subsidies.