(b) Fraud;

2.(a) B

Law Firm E, Attorneys F and G (Defendant B)

Defendant A, along with H, was established on August 7, 2008 by the Ministry of Employment and Labor on three commercial buildings in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “K”) for the purpose of conducting a remote training course for the ability development training for workers under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and Defendant A is a K’s representative director, and Defendant B is a person who has served as the head of the headquarters of the business.

In normal cases, the head of a child-care center shall prepare an entrustment contract for the training of the K and Internet commissioned education to implement job skills development training for childcare teachers employed in the child-care center and pay the education and training expenses to K. After that, if the head of the child-care center grants a ID and password for the education and training of the child-care center in K, the child-care center shall receive teaching materials and receive training in the form of access to the K mail distance training site (L and M) trainee learning management system (L, M) after receiving teaching materials in the form of access to the K mail distance training site (L and M) and submitting monthly learning targets, and if the number exceeds a certain point after applying for the examination, he/she shall complete the relevant course. On the other hand, the head of the child-care center who is an employer shall submit the list of childcare teachers who completed the distance training to the Human Resources Development Service of the victim

However, in ordinary cases, the head of a child-care center who did not complete the training course properly due to lack of time, etc., and the head of the child-care center who had concerns thereof is placed in a situation where it is difficult for them to comply with the above commissioned education contract, and the Defendants, in collusion with N and K employees and the head of the child-care center. The Defendants, in order to employ a part-time worker to use the characteristics on the computer web site and to have him/her perform the work such as the submission of learning courses and subjects, and the submission of a test answer paper on behalf of the infant-care teachers, or to produce false computerized information such as automatically entering the answer paper from the system, and to make and operate the "Counterfeit program."

1. Crimes from March 10, 2009 to July 2011 (the method of taking by proxy and taking by proxy)

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant A

On March 209, Defendant A, at the 6th K office of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (JS), had a child care teacher employed a part-time student to attend a course and submit subjects, and prepare and submit a test site on behalf of a child care teacher, in order for the child care teacher to be able to attend a normal course of education on behalf of the trainee, and Defendant A, throughO, installed a "blurg program" (which is able to access the system without undergoing regular procedures, such as designated user certification), provided that the trainee’s teaching material registration is stored automatically in the web server on the learning management system of the trainee and connect the trainee with the trainee’s ID (ID), provided that the child care teacher and the head of the center will have access to other places, not the place of registration, and provided the head of the center with the security account to enable the trainee to enter into a contract on behalf of the trainee, and provided the employer with the method of operating the facility with the head of the center and the head of the center with instructions to manage the work.

Accordingly, on March 10, 2009, Defendant A conspired with the president of the Seoul Employment Center of 363 Officers' Office in the middle-gu Seoul Employment Center, Defendant B and P Child Care Center in collusion with the president of the above child care center and nine persons including Defendant B and P Child Care Center Q, etc. were in a normal course of study on 10 courses, including ‘new acquisition and negotiation techniques'. The president of the P Child Care Center, based on the aforementioned false data, deceiving the employees of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea by preparing an application for subsidies for vocational skills development training expenses, etc. based on the aforementioned false data and receiving them to the competent Human Resources Development Service of Korea. Accordingly, Defendant A received KRW 1,323,000 as the cost of the remote postal training support from the Ministry of Employment and Labor, and received KRW 1,323,00 from March 10, 2009 to July 1, 2011, in collusion with the victim’s employees and the presidents of the child care center including Defendant B.

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant B

On March 10, 2009, Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A and the Director of the Seoul Employment Center of 363 Officers' Building as of March 10, 2009, operated computerized data as if 9 persons, such as Defendant A and the Director of the P Childcare Center, in collusion with Defendant A and the Director of the P Childcare Center, had completed the 10 regular curriculum of the 10 courses of the 10 courses of the 10th course of the 10th course of the 363 officer building including the Seoul Central District Office. The Director of the P Childcare Center, in writing an application for subsidies for vocational skills development training on the basis of the aforementioned false data, deceiving the employees of the Human Resources Development Service of Korea by preparing an application for subsidies for vocational skills development training on the basis of the aforementioned false data, and then, the victim was paid KRW 1,323,00

A total of 615,711,000 won was refunded between March 10, 2009 and July 201, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes (2).

From September 5, 2011 to April 12, 2013, the crime (a forged program operation method) was committed.

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by Defendant A

Defendant A: (a) around June 1 to 8, 201 at the above K office; (b) from around 10 to 10, it is difficult to manipulate the completion of education and training by means of proxy lectures and proxy tests conducted by the Ministry of Employment and Labor; (c) as if the trainees have completed the curriculum normally and submit a test answer sheet; (d) Defendant A, in collusion with the head of the 3rd K Education Management System to prepare a falsified program to make it possible for the aforementioned officers to automatically prepare the program; (e) from around 10 to 30, 201; and (e) from around 5, 201 to the 3rd K office; and (e) from the 5th day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 3th day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the 2nd day of the 3th day of the 2nd day of the 2nd day of the c.

B. Defendant B’s fraud

Defendant B, as of September 5, 201, in collusion with Defendant A and the Director of the Seoul Employment Center in the 363 Officers’ Building on the third floor in Jung-gu, Seoul. On September 5, 2011, in collusion with Defendant A and the Director of the Child Care Center, operated computerized data as if the aforementioned trainees of the Child Care Center were able to normally complete the curriculum through the fabrication program developed as above. The Director of the S Child Care Center was urged the employees of the Human Resources Development Service by preparing an application for subsidies for vocational skills development training based on the aforementioned false data and receiving them to the competent Human Resources Development Service, and then, he was urged to receive training fees from the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the purpose of paying subsidies for remote training by mail from September 5, 2011 to April 12, 2013, the Defendant received a refund of KRW 323,860,000,000 from September 5, 2011 to April 12, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

【Article 1-1(A)】

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. A written statement prepared;

1. Investigation report (Investigation into the suspect in the course of installing the white-sea program);

[Article 1-2]

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant B;

1. Defendant A’s statement in the suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution (No. 4) against Defendant A;

1. N’s interrogation protocol of the police (2 times) 1. The interrogation protocol of the police officer against U (2)

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol (three times, four times);

1. Each written statement of the police interrogation protocol of H 1, W, X preparation;

1. Each investigation report (the details of payment of N agency testing expenses for suspects, specific investigations into refunds, suspect N, etc., details of monthly payment of testing expenses for N agency job trainees);

【Paragraph 2 of this Article】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Statement made by the N of witness in the first trial record;

1. Each police protocol of suspect questioning of each police officer against the 0, U, V, H, Y, Z, Z, Z, AB, AD, AE, AF, AG, X, AH, AJ, AK, AL, AM, Am, AP, AP, AP, AP, AS, AS, AS, AV, AU, AX, AV, Q, B, B, and BC;

1. Each police record statement with respect to BD, BE, BF, BG, BH, BI, BJ,K, and BL;

1. Each investigation report (investigation into the financial account of business employees, payment, analysis and investigation of business employees' allowances, and offenses by type;

Specific Investigations

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

B. Defendant B: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (as a whole, Article 1-2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (as a whole, Article 3(1)2 of the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of Article 2 of the Judgment with heavier penalty);

(b) Defendant B: The penalty provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, which is heavier than the penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Judgment on Defendant B and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the claim as to No. 1-b in its holding

A. The amount acquired through deceptions Nos. 1 through 23 as shown in the [Attachment 2] List of Crimes (2) was calculated on the basis of each document (an investigation record 2889, 305-3057 pages) in which H and V unilaterally prepared by Defendant B, who was the head of other business headquarters of K, without consultation with Defendant B, was calculated on the basis of each document (an investigation record 2889, 305-3057 pages), and there are cases where the number of proxy as the basis for calculation exceeds the number of business performance of Defendant B as indicated in the actual receipt of the K operator’s salary (Investigation record 6147-6176 pages).

B. Defendant B deposited the money into the N if the number of training consignment contracts, which the R in charge of the vicarious test was illegally completed through the vicarious test conducted by Defendant B, was informed of the vicarious test cost calculated by multiplying 500 won per case of the vicarious test. Defendant B deposited the money into the N’s account during the period from March 2009 to July 2009, when Defendant B did not deposit the vicarious test cost into the N’s account.

[Attachment 1] The amount obtained by deceit from August 2009 to January 201, 201, which is the period during which Defendant B deposited the proxy test fund in N’s account, shall be excluded from [Attachment 2] The amount obtained by deceit under Paragraph 1(b) of the judgment is ultimately 394,575,00 won. 4)

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence examined earlier, K’s head of K’s operating headquarters and its employees reported the number of vicarious tests conducted by themselves from R in charge of vicarious tests, and paid N an acting test cost of KRW 500 per case to N., and N paid money paid from the head of the operating headquarters and its employees as it is to E.N. The head of the childcare center from March 2009 to April 201, 2000 per proxy training cost of KRW 72,000 per case, from May 201 to January 201, 201, the number of vicarious tests cost of KRW 47,00 per case was paid to N. B from March 3, 2009 to January 201, the Prosecutor calculated the number of vicarious tests cost of KRW 50 per case by multiplying the number of vicarious tests cost of KRW 37,00 per case by the number of vicarious tests cost of KRW 30 to 35,200 per month from January 201.

B. Furthermore, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, the fact that Defendant B acquired 615,711,000 won in total of the refund money stated in the attached Table (2) in the crime sight table can be fully recognized.

① At the time of undergoing an investigation at the police station, H and V discussed and introduced a vicarious test for the early 2009 police officer, and since March 2009, R made a vicarious test for the early Habrician. From around March 2009, R made a statement to the effect that, if the number of vicarious tests was notified to the head of the headquarters and its employees, it would be KRW 500 per case and deposited the vicarious test cost into N or paid in cash directly to N, and submitted each document stating the number of vicarious tests of Defendant B from March 2009 to January 201. The above statements and descriptions of each document are sufficiently reliable in light of the following: (a) the process of introduction of the vicarious test, the method of payment of the vicarious test cost, the number of vicarious tests stated in each document, etc.

② According to the above H and V’s statement, Defendant B’s proxy test cost was paid in cash to N in addition to the method of paying the N’s account. As such, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B’s representative number should be calculated solely on the basis of the details deposited in the N’s account.

③ On November 27, 2013, at the time of undergoing an investigation by the prosecution, Defendant B used unlawful means of employing Abane students from March 2009 to January 201, 201, and upon completing education through the above agency test, Plaintiff B notified each business member of R of the number of Ebrates and stated that “at the time of undergoing an investigation by the prosecution, the amount entered in [Attachment Table 6126, 6134] was 50 won per proxy test and deposited in cash or account.” On December 3, 2013, Defendant B stated that the number of Ebrates was 50 won per proxy test and the number of Ebrates was 50 won, and the business member stated that “at the time of undergoing an investigation by the prosecution,” the amount recorded in [Attachment Table 6126] of Ebrates by the prosecutor’s account, and that the aforementioned method of paying Ebrates and statements were 68 times of paying Ebrates and statements.

④ On December 3, 2013, the Prosecutor’s Office stated that the training consignment agreement number which Defendant B concluded cannot be concluded to have been fully reflected in the statement of actual receipt of K operator’s salary (the Investigation Record 6147-6 pages). Defendant B included part of W and X’s business at the time of the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office on December 3, 2013, and that the amount of the money obtained through deception as stated in the [Attachment] List of Crimes included part of W and X’s business, which is one of its own business members, is the structure to obtain some profits of its business members as the head of the headquarters (the Investigation Record 6186 pages). In light of the above fact that the number of training consignment agreements concluded by W and X, etc., Defendant B’s business members, were not reflected in the business performance of Defendant B in the above actual receipt statement, it cannot be deemed that the amount of the money obtained by Defendant B should be calculated on the basis of the above actual receipt only.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and not more than 40 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime Group, General Fraud, Type 3 [(at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)], and the same type of concurrent crimes, the determination of types shall be based on the sum of the amount of profit]

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than six years (Basic Area)

B. Defendant B

[Determination of Punishment] Fraudulent Crime Group, General Fraud, Type 3 [(at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won)], and the same type of concurrent crimes, the determination of types shall be based on the sum of the amount of profit]

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than six years (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence and the reasons therefor;

(a) Sentence;

1) Defendant A: Imprisonment for a period of three years and six months;

2) Defendant B: Imprisonment for three years;

(b) Grounds;

In light of the fact that the crime of this case is a large amount of fraud caused by the crime of this case, and the amount of fraud is not properly performed until now, it is inevitable to sentence the defendants a sentence of imprisonment on the part of the defendants, considering the fact that the crime of this case is not committed, considering the fact that the crime of this case is not committed, in order to promote the improvement of workers' vocational ability by deceiving the Government as if the child care teachers were to have completed vocational ability development projects normally by means of unlawful methods, such as an agent test that employs a part-time student and the development of a forged program, etc.,

However, the following facts are considered as favorable to the Defendants: (a) Defendant A both attempted to commit a crime and reflects the mistake; (b) Defendant A is a primary offender who has no criminal history; (c) Defendant B has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime; (d) the actual amount of profit of the Defendants is not much larger than the amount of defraudation; and (e) Defendant B deposited KRW 10 million for the victim; and (c) further, the details and degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime and all other circumstances revealed in the trial process are comprehensively considered.

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Park Jong-young

2) Defendant B and the defense counsel do not dispute the amount obtained by fraud from Nos. 24 to 30 per annum of the annexed crime sight table (2).

3) The “number of representation cases” refers to the number of cases having completed the curriculum through a proxy test. In this case, two to three representation tests were required to complete one curriculum.

4) Defendant B and the defense counsel divided the amount corresponding to the proxy test cost from March 2009 to April 2010 into 1500 won (the need for proxy test No. 1 and No. 3) from March 2009 to April 2010. The number of monthly representative tests was calculated from May 201 to July 201 by dividing the amount into KRW 100 (the need for proxy test No. 1 and No. 2) and then, from March 2009 and March 201 to April 201, the amount was calculated by acquiring KRW 72,00,000 for the above period from May 201 to October 201, 201 by acquiring KRW 72,00,000 for each month from May 20 to October 201, 201 to receive KRW 70,000 for each of the above period.