The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the following facts are sufficiently recognized: (a) the Defendant: (b) concluded a false lease agreement with the victim of the farmland (hereinafter “R land”) and 13,144 square meters (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) on the land (hereinafter “victim”) prior to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of farmland purchase support money from the Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter “victim”); and (c) concluded a false lease agreement with the victim of the land (hereinafter “R land”) to be eligible for full-time farming; and (d) thereby, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the fact that the Defendant acquired the farmland purchase support money by deception as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant’s act of filing an application for fostering professional farmers by indicating R land as “the answer” according to the land category, which is not the “pre-use” according to the actual usage, could objectively constitute deception against the victim’s corporation; (b) however, considering the following various circumstances comprehensively, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant can be included in the scale of the management to be designated as a person eligible for fostering professional rice farmers as a real rice farmer, such as the facts charged, on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had a criminal intent of deceiving or

1. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deny the fact that the Defendant leased the R land itself, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the part where the Defendant entered the lease of the said land in the farmland ledger is false.

① The Defendant leased the issue of “B” in the prosecution to establish a two-wave farming house, and the Defendant purchased the seeds from T in 2015.