사회복지사업법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the facts charged C is a person who is in charge of the management of welfare projects for senior citizens' jobs and the payment of activity subsidy to senior citizens participating in the job under the E-employment support division located in e-job from February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016, and the defendant worked for C.
The head of the E facility is a person who comprehensively manages the overall affairs of the welfare center.
C Around October 2015, from around December 2016 to around December 2016, a social welfare subsidy (operation subsidy) received from the Sungsung City while taking charge of the elderly job welfare program (F) in E was properly paid to the elderly who actually participated in the job program. However, a part of the elderly who was unable to engage in financial transactions is registered with the renouncer, and then received and preserved the activity expenses, taking advantage of the fact that it is possible to pay for cash to the elderly who actually participated in the job program, and then used it for personal use and embezzled the total amount of KRW 26,897,820 over 135 times as stated in the list of crimes listed in the lower judgment. The Defendant committed the above violation as to the Defendant’s employee C’s act at the above date and at the above place.
2. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant served on C;
According to the E Head of the facility and the evidence of the report on a unique number and welfare facility for the elderly (Evidence No. 135 of the evidence record), H was reported to be established as a welfare facility for the aged, and the head of the facility and the founder of the facility are not the defendant, and the defendant is not the defendant.) The G Foundation followed the defendant's change that it operates E and used C to employ the defendant.
Inasmuch as there is no evidence to determine the person, C acquitted the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the “Defendant’s agent, employee, or other employee” as prescribed in Article 56 of the Social Welfare Business Act cannot be deemed as “the agent, employee, or other employee of
3. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the head of E and the welfare center.