All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court in the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the receipt of fraud and subsidies to the Defendants; (b) each occupational embezzlement listed in the table of crime Nos. 1, 3, and 4 attached to the judgment of the court below; and (c) Defendant A’s false indication of origin of agricultural products in the judgment of the court below was found guilty; (b) Defendant A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor; and (c) Defendant B was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor; and (d) Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement listed in the table No. 2 attached to the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below was acquitted; and (c)

As to this part, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is followed, and only the guilty part recognized by the court below is decided as follows.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1’s mistake of fact) In relation to the fraud and the fraudulent receipt of subsidies, the construction of a cement processing plant (hereinafter “instant construction”) was conducted under a contract entered into between Q and H agricultural partnership, and both Defendant B and Defendant A were responsible for the disposal of a person’s charge related to the said construction. Although Defendant A did not have participated therein, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to occupational embezzlement, Defendant A used the total amount of KRW 250 million borrowed from the Nonghyup Branch for G farming association corporation for the damaged G farming association corporation, and did not use it for personal purposes. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In fact, Defendant A was fully responsible for the Defendant’s input of the instant construction work, and Defendant B’s fraud and subsidies.