(영문) 수원지방법원 2011. 2. 16. 선고 2010고단3031 판결[사기][미간행]
Defendant
Freeboard
Attorney Lee Sang-hoon
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.
When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.
In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.
The defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted 2 company, who is a mobile phone parts repair business in Suwon-si (hereinafter address omitted).
On January 6, 2009, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court), who is an employee of the above company, submitted an application for employment maintenance support payment (suspension) to an employee who is unaware of the circumstances of the company support team of the Suwon-gu Office of Labor in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 939 New-dong Office Office, the second floor of Suwon-si Office of Labor and Labor Support Center of Suwon-si, which was located in the second floor of Suwon-si Office, Suwon-si, 939, the Defendant submitted an application with the content that “The employees of Nonindicted Party 2 were suspended for some of 30 days from November 1, 2008 to November 30, 208, and paid leave allowances to the employees.”
However, between November 1, 2008 and November 30, 2008, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 13 had worked in the company for a certain period of business suspension.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the above employees as above, received 4,319,600 won from the above center to the corporate bank account under the name of Nonindicted Company 2 for the purpose of maintaining employment around January 20, 2009, and acquired it by deceiving them, and acquired it by deceiving the total amount of KRW 37,896,323 in the same way as shown in the attached crime list, such as the attached crime list.
1. The defendant's legal statement;
1. The witness’s respective legal statements (part) from Nonindicted 1, 3, 14, 4, 9, 15, 11, and 10
1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant and non-indicted 1 (part)
1. Each investigation report (related to the application for employment subsidies) and each employment maintenance support payment report, investigation report (related to the false preparation of the current status of attendance), and false preparation of the current status of attendance, each investigation report (related to the actual preparation of the current status of attendance) and the actual preparation of the current status of attendance, investigation report (including the actual preparation of the current status of attendance), work draft, etc., investigation report (Nonindicted 1 work record) and substitute list, etc., investigation report (including investigation report) and substitute list, details of transaction statement, etc., investigation report (including investigation report (including the attendance record outside 4 work record) and trade statement, investigation report (related to the work attendance record of employees, materials attendance), materials-time report, day-to-day report,
1. The reference inquiry report;
1. Nonindicted Company 2’s organization
1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;
Articles 347(1) and 30(1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of a fine, taking into account the favorable circumstances in the sentencing of the following reasons):
1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;
Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act
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
In light of the fact that the Defendant’s management company received employment maintenance support payment due to false application and received taxes from the citizens and violated the purpose of the employment maintenance support payment system, and that there is no reflective light while denying the Defendant’s criminal intent. However, the Defendant appears to have caused the above crime for the employees, and that there is no personal gain, and that there is only part of the amount corresponding to the number of days of attendance of the employees out of the above deceptive amount (if property is given by the Defendant’s deception, it seems that the total amount of employment maintenance support payment should be the amount obtained by deceit), and that there is only part of the amount corresponding to the number of days of attendance of the employees (if property is given by the Defendant’s deception, it seems that the total amount of employment maintenance support payment should be the amount to be sufficiently recovered, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, health status, motive, and circumstances after the
[Attachment]
Judges Kim Jong-hee