The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant C for six months.

A. Defendant B’s defense counsel only prepared and submitted an application for medical care benefits through Co-Defendant A (hereinafter “A”) according to the end of the original judgment, which is the actual operator of the instant maintenance shop, and there was no intention in collusion with Defendant B to conceal the benefits by deceiving the victim.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is not only omitted in the judgment on the actual monthly salary of Defendant B, but also the actual monthly salary of Defendant B is 3.6 million won.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding Defendant B guilty of the facts charged.

B. The judgment of the court below by the defense counsel of Defendant C omitted the judgment on the actual monthly wage of Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant C and Defendant B to commit the instant crime, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding Defendant C guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination:

A. The judgment on the omission of judgment (related to the actual monthly salary of Defendant B) recognized that the Defendants reported Defendant B’s monthly salary amounting to KRW 3.6 million by falsely reporting the monthly salary amount to KRW 3.6 million and convicted the victim Gwangju Regional Headquarters of Korea Labor Welfare Corporation of the crime of fraud, but in determining the deception of fraud, the Defendants committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by omitting judgment on the actual monthly salary amount of Defendant B, which is the premise fact, in determining the deception of fraud

However, despite the above grounds for reversal, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following.

We examine this in the paragraph.

B. (1) In addition to the witness A and D’s legal statement in each of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the witness I’s statement in the second trial records, Defendant B shall be deemed to have added to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.