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

The defendant is a person who has served as an employee in charge of accounting of the Incheon Metropolitan City Volunteer Service Center from May 18, 2017 to October 9, 2018.

No one shall receive unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means, and job-seeking benefits out of unemployment benefits shall be denied if the insured has left his/her job-seeking benefits due to his/her own reason.

Nevertheless, on October 12, 2018, the Defendant submitted an application for recognition of eligibility to receive job-seeking benefits with false statement of “a recommendation agency due to the change of the head of the agency,” and received job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 433,720 from around that time to February 2019, and received job-seeking benefits amounting to KRW 8,132,370 for 150 through six times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, from around that time, the Defendant received benefits amounting to KRW 8,132,370 by the same method.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. A certificate (F);

1. Correction of details of insured employment information, copies of applications for recognition of eligibility for benefits (A), copies of applications for recognition of unemployment, and inquiries about individual benefits;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention on unjust supply of and demand for the investigation report (the criteria for the payment of unemployment benefits to the Labor Agency and the confirmation of the application data for unemployment benefits for the suspect), and that even if not falling under the recommendation agency, the defendant was under circumstances to believe that the recommendation agency was made, and thus, there was no intention on unjust supply and demand.

On September 29, 2020, the defense counsel of the defendant asserts that the declaration of intention to resign is null and void or has not been accepted in his defense counsel's written opinion.

However, such assertion is inconsistent with the consistent argument of the defendant that the legitimate application for unemployment benefits was made on the premise that the resignation takes effect, and the purport of the assertion is not clear.