The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The Defendant had intention to apply for unemployment benefits in light of the fact that the Defendant had been aware of the relevant provisions accurately, by applying for unemployment benefits for three months thereafter, would have received the same amount of unemployment benefits;

shall not be deemed to have

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The lower court applied Article 116(2) of the Employment Insurance Act to criminal facts as indicated in its judgment.

However, Article 116(2) of the current Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13041, Jan. 20, 2015; a statutory penalty of one year or less or a fine of ten million won or less) enters into force on the same day as of January 20, 2015. Thus, the current Employment Insurance Act cannot apply to the above criminal facts committed by a defendant prior to the enforcement of the current Employment Insurance Act, and Article 116(2) of the former Employment Insurance Act (amended by Act No. 13041, Jan. 20, 2015; a statutory penalty of one year or less; a fine of three million won or less) should be applied.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. We examine the reasons for appeal. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant applied for unemployment benefits on November 5, 2012 and received the same amount of unemployment benefits as stated in the attached Table of the judgment below, although the defendant continued to work for B corporation without actual retirement from office around November 201, 2012, and did not remain unemployed, it can be recognized that the defendant had intent to apply for unemployment benefits at the time of applying for unemployment benefits on November 5, 2012, regardless of whether the defendant applied for unemployment benefits normally and received the same amount of unemployment benefits. Thus, the defendant's assertion is justified.