logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.09.27 2012노2814
고용보험법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. With respect to the crime of Paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below as to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error), Defendant A was employed as a regular employee from January 2009 to September 2009 as a volunteer and received benefits, and thus, Defendant A’s receiving job-seeking benefits of this case is justifiable.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the representative of a non-profit non-profit organization of Ansan-gu D in Ansan-si, and the defendant A was working as a volunteer at the school of this case under the above D.

In collusion with the Defendants, Defendant B submitted a report of severance on November 2009 to the Ansan-si Office of the Korea Labor Agency, and Defendant A, around December 16, 2009, entered the said fact in the application for recognition of the recipient qualification in his name without having worked in the instant meal service center, and submitted it to the person in charge of unemployment benefits for 90 days to be recognized as the truth, and received the payment of 2,592,000 won in total from December 23, 2009 to March 22, 2010 as job-seeking benefits for 90 days from December 23, 2009 to March 22, 2010.

B. The lower court determined that Defendant A received benefits of KRW 120,000 per month from February 20, 2009, and actually worked at the instant meal service establishment from around September 30, 2009, and was subject to recommendation from the said meal service establishment. As such, Defendant A’s assertion that the instant job-seeking benefits of this case were legitimate, Defendant A’s demand and supply of job-seeking benefits of this case is based on the following circumstances, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the instant evidence.

arrow