1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

[Status of the Defendant] Since 1998, the Defendant was working as the head of the branch office of an incorporated association from around 1998 and has been in charge of claiming and executing subsidies.

【Criminal Facts】

A subsidized business operator who has received a subsidy from the Busan Viewers shall bear at least 20% of the total project expenses, and shall not use the subsidy as general operating expenses or use it for any project other than the subsidized project.

1. Fraud;

A. On April 28, 2009, the Defendant prepared an application for subsidies to the effect that “E” projects shall be promoted at the branch of Busan District Office D, “E” shall be borne by the Defendant at the branch of Busan District Office D, and the Defendant shall pay KRW 6 million (46%) out of the total project cost expected to be required for the project, and in the case of Busan Viewers, the Defendant shall grant subsidies of KRW 7 million (54%) to the victim, and submitted it to Busan Viewers.

However, the Defendant had no intention to pay self-paid charges, and was thought to use some of the subsidies as general operating expenses or living expenses.

Around April 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 3.2 million won as a subsidy from the victim.

B. On May 7, 2009, the Defendant prepared an application for subsidies with the purport that “F” projects shall be promoted at the D Branch of the Busan District Office, “F” shall be borne by 1.55 million won (31%) out of the total project cost anticipated to be required for the project, which shall be borne by 5,000 won (31%), and that subsidies shall be granted to the Busan Viewers, which shall be 3,450,000 won (69%) and submitted to the Busan Viewers, the victim.

However, the Defendant had no intention to pay self-paid charges, and was thought to use some of the subsidies as general operating expenses or living expenses.

The defendant deceivings the victim as such, and then grants subsidies from the victim around May 2009.