The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant did not receive direct payments compensating for rice income, etc. (hereinafter “direct payments”) by fraud or other improper means that he/she maintained the shape and function of farmland and produced rice with respect to each of the instant land in 2009, but was guilty of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court: ① (i) the witness F, G, and H, who examined the present condition of each of the instant land for which the Defendant applied for subsidies, around December 201 and around January 201, the lower court stated that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have produced rice by maintaining the shape and function of each of the instant land as farmland in around 2009; (ii) even based on the above on the land survey conducted in detail, it does not seem to have produced rice while maintaining the shape and function of the farmland in around 2009; and (iii) according to the results of the on-site survey conducted by the witness S, who examined the present status of each of the instant land for which the Defendant applied for subsidies, the Defendant could not be deemed to have been aware of whether the instant land was subject to the farmland transfer through a thorough examination conducted by the Defendant during the period of two years from around 200 to around 200.