logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.18 2016고정3993
산업재해보상보험법위반
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant engaged in the construction business under the trade name of “C”. On February 2015, the Defendant was awarded an order to receive industrial accident compensation insurance proceeds by the Busan YY and executed this construction work by D (hereinafter “D”) and, on July 7, 2016, by entering into a subcontract for part of the construction work by E (hereinafter “G Construction”) with a verbal subcontract for the construction work from “G Construction Work” (hereinafter “G Construction Work”). On June 20, 2015, the Defendant was under the pretext of the left-hand bridge at the G Construction Work site (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the Defendant’s intention to receive industrial accident compensation insurance proceeds by pretending that it is an employee belonging to D, a policyholder of industrial accident compensation insurance, and received a total of KRW 30,00,000,000,000 from the Busan 3rd 20,000,0000,000,0000,000 won under the name of 30,000,000.

Accordingly, the Defendant received insurance benefits under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act by fraud or other improper means.

[In regard to this, the defendant/defense counsel asserted that the defendant participated in G Corporation as a daily worker of at least KRW 150,000 per day upon E's request, and that there was no false and fraudulent means to apply for industrial accident insurance benefits as above. The defendant directly prepared an application for medical care benefits and suspension benefits; according to the above, E, a policyholder's sewage, was employed as a commercial and regular worker.

Since it is written differently, it is true that the defendant's application for industrial accident is all true, it is deemed that there is no false representation in the application and there is no unlawful method.

However, this Court.

arrow