2017 Highest 785 Employment Insurance Act Violation, Fraud

1.A

2.B

Lee Jong-chul, Lee In-bok, Lee In-bok

Attorney C (Preamble for both the defendants)

December 6, 2017

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day when the Defendants did not pay each such fine;

Defendants are confined in the workhouse.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Criminal History Office

The Defendants reported a false daily work as if they worked in D (State) operated by Defendant B, who did not work in the company, and conspired to receive unemployment benefits by applying for them.

Accordingly, Defendant A received an application for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits from the fact that Defendant A had worked in the Guri Employment Center located in Guri-si on December 28, 2015 and had worked in the Guri Employment Center from D to November 30, 2015, and received a request for recognition of eligibility for unemployment benefits.

However, in fact, Defendant A did not have been engaged in daily work in D (state), and only reported daily work with Defendant A for the purpose of dealing with the personnel expenses of Defendant B.

Defendant A, upon recognition of eligibility for benefits as above, filed an application for unemployment benefits with the Central and Medium Local Employment Management Agency on January 11, 2016, and then received KRW 3,615,820 on a total of four occasions, including KRW 321,40 on December 12, 2016, KRW 16,160 on February 16, 2016, KRW 15,124,920 on March 15, 2016, and KRW 763,340 on April 5, 2016.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to receive the unemployment benefits by deceiving the victim and at the same time receiving the unemployment benefits by false or unjust means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Details of transactions attached to the police investigation protocol for the defendant A; and

1. An application for work details inquiry by the insured and for each recognition of unemployment (in addition to the National Pension Insurance Coverage Period), 6;

7, 8, 9), March, April, May, June, June, June, July, July, August, August, September, September, October, and November;

Investigation Report (related to attachment, etc. of details of passbook A in the name of the suspect), and deposit transaction statement (net No. A)

15) Personal benefit details inquiry, personal history inquiry, inquiry into employment insurance establishments, reply to fact inquiry (eligible for benefits)

Applications and related documents

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Articles 347(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(1) and (b) of the Employment Insurance Act

Article 116(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point and overall point of illegal receipt of unemployment benefits)

B. Defendant B: Articles 347(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, and Article 347(2) of the Employment Insurance Act

Article 116(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point and overall point of illegal receipt of unemployment benefits)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code

1. Selection of punishment;

Selection of each fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

The fact that the Defendants reported their daily work with false contents and received unemployment benefits, and the law of crime was inadequate, and the amount of unemployment benefits received by falsity is relatively large, is an element of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants showed the attitude of recognizing and opposing the instant crime, and the fact that the Defendants returned unemployment benefits illegally received to the additional collection of unemployment benefits, etc., shall be considered as favorable sentencing factors for the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the

Mazines

1) The written indictment is written as the “NG Labour Office Gangwon-do Office” but it appears to be a clerical error in the written application for unemployment recognition, as it appears to be a clerical error in the written application.

shall be amended as above.