logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노1071
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that three persons registered as false infant care teachers in the summary of the grounds for appeal appear to have been registered as infant care teachers through the Defendant, the Defendant and H were in the past legal marital relationship, and appears to have maintained marital relationship in appearance at the time of the instant case, and had been providing financial assistance, etc., the lower court found that the Defendant conspired with H to commit the instant crime, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of misunderstanding the fact.

2. On March 2, 2005, the Defendant registered and authorized the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D Child Care Center as representative E. Around July 31, 2006, the Defendant registered and authorized the Seoul Special Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F1-story G Child Care Center as representative H. Around November 10, 2006, the Defendant registered and operated these children’s house as representative K.

While operating H and each of the above child care centers, the Defendant paid 2.70,000 won per day to the child care teachers who have been residing in the same facility for at least two months in Gwangjin-gu, and provided 15,000 won per month to the child care teachers who have worked for at least 30 hours per month (at least 30 hours per week) and paid 50,000 won per month to the child care teachers who have worked for at least 15,000 won per month, by abusing the fact that the infant care teachers have not worked for the actual work, the Defendant conspired to falsely register the infant care teachers who have not worked for the actual work with the welfare and welfare of the Gojin-gu office and to obtain the cost of improving the treatment and working environment for the infant care teachers by pretending to be the teachers who actually

Accordingly, the Defendant colored the childcare teacher to be registered falsely among the zers known to H and P, and (1) upon request from L around November 201, 2010, upon receipt of the certificate of the childcare teacher and L’s certificate, the Defendant was registered as J childcare teacher around November 1, 201, and (2) on November 1, 201.

arrow