beta
Text
The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.
Reasons
The defendant in the factory office shall retire on November 10, 2014, and then apply for the recognition of unemployment benefits to the Kimhae Employment Center on January 5, 2015, and receive unemployment benefits from January 12, 2015.
2. up to July, 200 re-employment had been made for gold and soil work on the mutual heading of C.
The requirements for receiving job-seeking benefits shall be prescribed to be when a person is in a state of unemployment despite his/her intent and ability to work, and cannot apply for unemployment benefits, etc. by fraud or other improper means, however, the defendant, despite the fact that he/she is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits at the Busan Regional Labor Agency's Kimhae Employment Center's branch office around January 19, 2015, even though he/she is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits, from January 12, 2015 by submitting an application for payment to D.
2. Until June 16, 200, 36 days out of unemployment benefits were illegally received and defraudeded by deceptioning KRW 1,350,420.
(1) The prosecutor intends to fully prove the fact of fraudulent supply or fraudulentation due to the reemployment of the Defendant during the period of unemployment benefit, but the above document does not confirm the fact of re-employment of the Defendant. However, the prosecutor is not obliged to verify the fact of re-employment of the Defendant.
In addition, the investigation of employers or workplaces is not likely to be conducted prior to the institution of public prosecution.
(2) According to the National Tax Service’s civil petition reply against the Defendant, rather than the Defendant’s defense evidence, the Defendant did not work at the main office (trade name) located in Kimhae-si from January 9, 2015 to February 7, 2015. However, even if the Defendant did not work at the main office (trade name) located in Kimhae-si, the Defendant reported the details of the daily wage and salary income payment to the tax office that erroneously stated that the Defendant was employed during the above period due to the mistake of the main business owner, and it can be acknowledged that the above mistake was corrected by the revised report.
(3) In conclusion, the prosecutor's proof of the criminal intent or fraudulent receipt of the defendant is sufficient.