Where repeated unauthorized fee placement and placement services can be assessed as a comprehensive crime;

An unauthorized fee placement act is anticipated to repeat the same kind of act due to the nature of the constituent elements of the crime, and where it is reasonable to evaluate the whole as one act because several repeated acts are closely related to each other, such as the distance of time and place, similarity of methods, the same opportunity, the continuation of crimes, etc., one comprehensive crime shall be formed.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 10(1) of the Act on Employment Security and Employment Promotion

Defendant

Prosecutor

Gwangju District Court Decision 92No1076 delivered on December 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The act of job placement without permission in violation of the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Employment Security and Employment Promotion Act is expected to repeat the act of the same kind due to the nature of the constituent elements of the crime. Since repeated several acts are closely related with one another, such as temporary and temporary distance of places, similarity of methods, the same opportunity, the continuance of a criminal intent, etc., and it is reasonable to evaluate all of them as one act, it constitutes a comprehensive crime. According to the records of this case, the defendant's act of job placement and placement of unauthorized oil in this case was conducted two times from July 31, 191 to August 31 of the same year. On the other hand, the job placement act of this case was conducted on July 8 of the same year. And all of the defendant was done in the position of employee of Gwangju 5 Job Information Office, and the defendant can be recognized as close to the time and place between them, the method, and the continuation of a criminal's act. Thus, the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of job placement as a comprehensive crime.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)