When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who runs a wholesale business in the mutual name of “B” and receives basic living expenses.

A person who has received a payment pursuant to the National Basic Living Security Act shall report to the head of the competent Eup/Myeon/Dong office or the head of the residents' center where there is a change in the residential area, household composition, person who has no support, income, property, etc.

Nevertheless, since May 22, 2009, the Defendant was receiving basic supply cost from the East Dobcheon Viewing to the present day, and on September 28, 2013, the Defendant purchased and operated 23,936,000 won in the name of the Defendant’s father C and operated 5 vehicles, but did not report this fact to the East Dobcheon Viewing.

Therefore, from October 2013 to January 2016, the Defendant received the supply of basic living costs equivalent to KRW 25,156,266, such as living benefits, education benefits, and housing benefits, as shown in the separate crime list, from the Dong Dobcheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the witness E in the sixth public trial records;

1. A report on internal investigation (with respect to the verification of CCTV for vehicles), a letter of credit inquiry (F, D), a mandatory insurance coverage statement, a register of visitors to the police station, a photograph of visitors to the police station, a register of visitors to the police station, a statement of payment of basic livelihood security benefits;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Article 49 of the relevant Act on criminal facts, Article 49 of the National Living Security Act on the basis of which punishment is selected, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. The defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the issue of the main text of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the cost of lawsuit is that the defendant's father C purchased the vehicle of this case directly at his own expense, and that the defendant did not actually purchase or habitually use the 5 vehicle of this case.

In other words, the defendant is owned by the food beer or vehicle around October 9, 2001, which is recognized as being comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, and < Amended by Act No. 8574, Oct. 9, 2008>