Defendant who converted 50,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The defendant is the representative of (State) B in Ulsan-gu, and C is the representative of (State) D and (State) E in the upper Dong-dong of Kim Jong-si.

C found at the K, G, H, and I’s workplace under the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency under the Ministry of Labor to be supported by the State subsidies from less than 50 workplaces for the prevention of industrial accidents and the improvement of the working environment, thereby selling goods by means of returning all or part of the shares of the persons to be borne by each workplace in order to prevent industrial accidents and sell products for the improvement of the working environment produced by C, and F, G, H, and I, under the direction of C, promised to avoid some or all of the shares of the persons to be borne by each workplace in advance with the representatives of each workplace, and to conceal the estimated return of some of the shares of the persons to be borne by C, and to apply for subsidies to the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency under the name of each workplace.

Accordingly, C intended to return some of the subsidies if it purchases the products produced by C to its own employees ( state) and prepared a contract to purchase 12 kinds of products, such as mobile loan, which is a mobile business support facility, in the name of Haman (ju) B, and submitted it to the Seoul Specialized Agency for the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, and J reported the above progress situation to the Defendant.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) 7,8,80,00 won out of 8,768,00 won, 7,800 won, and 00 won out of 28,768, and 00 won are to be returned by C in advance; (b) 20, 968, and 00 won, which are to be refunded from 28,768, and 00 won of the total amount of investment that C applied for the grant of subsidies, must be paid a subsidy on the basis of 20,968, and 00 won.

Accordingly, the Defendant and C, in collusion, received around November 30, 201 a subsidy of KRW 20,00 (20,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 20, KRW 00, KRW 20, KRW 968, KRW 00, KRW 14,577, KRW 308, KRW 692, KRW 5,422, KRW 692) from the Central Safety and Health Agency by unlawful means, as above, the difference between KRW 20,00, KRW 20, KRW 968, KRW 00, KRW 20, KRW 14,57, and KRW 308.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, J and K

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect C by the prosecution;

1. C Each protocol concerning the examination of the police suspect against C and F;

1. Statement of police statement to J;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 40 of the former Subsidy Budget and Management Act (amended by Act No. 10898, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter referred to as the "Subsidy Management Act") Article 40 (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant’s criminal intent cannot be recognized, as the act described in the above facts charged was determined and proceeded by the J, who is an employee of B, according to F’s proposal, and the Defendant did not know the fact that the Defendant was granted subsidies by unlawful means in the name of B, such as the record of the above indictment, because the Defendant was either involved or was not reported by the J.

2. Determination

The defendant's assertion that the above receipt of the subsidy was made without the defendant's knowledge is not acceptable, since according to the J or the above evidence (in particular, according to the police statement protocol against J), the fact that the J reports the progress to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above receipt of the subsidy was made without the defendant's knowledge.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.