The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 116 (2) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13041, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding three million won.

“......”

In light of the regulatory structure of the former Employment Insurance Act, the language and text of the foregoing penal provision, and Article 75 of the former Employment Insurance Act, after receiving a leave before and after childbirth or a miscarriage or stillbirth leave and paying benefits to insured workers meeting certain requirements, Article 116(2) of the former Employment Insurance Act can only apply to those who received unemployment benefits under Article 37 of the same Act, Article 70 of the same Act, and Article 75 of the same Act, with respect to those who received the benefits equivalent to “the leave benefits before and after childbirth, etc.” by fraud or other improper means.

It should be interpreted.

Therefore, as to a person who received “employment maintenance subsidy” in this case based on Article 21(1) of the former Employment Insurance Act and Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by fraud or other improper means, even though there is room for establishing a crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act or Article 40 of the former Subsidy Management Act (amended by Act No. 14524, Jan. 4, 2017), it cannot be punished by applying Article 116(2) of the former Employment Insurance Act.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court of first instance reversed the conviction portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and acquitted the defendant, and the judgment of the court below dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of first instance.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of Article 116 (2) of the former Employment Insurance Act or by violating the rules of evidence.