The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, deposited KRW 27,010,000 corresponding to the amount of employment support illegally received through a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection and Settlement Support of North Korean Residents, before the first instance judgment, and did not actually belong to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below sentenced the Defendant to the additional collection of KRW 27,010,000. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (the 3 years of the suspended sentence of 1 year and June, the 40 hours of imprisonment, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program, the 27,010,000 additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 33(1) of the North Korean Residents Protection and Settlement Support Act provides that “any person who has received protection and support under this Act or has allowed another person to receive protection and support by fraud or other improper means shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won,” and Article 33(3) of the same Act provides that “property or property benefits received pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) shall be confiscated.”

If confiscation is not possible, the value of the confiscation shall be collected additionally.

In this case, the Defendant received employment subsidies of KRW 27,010,000 on 17 occasions in total from September 4, 2012 to December 19, 2014 as a crime of violation of the Act on the Protection and Settlement Support of North Korean Residents Withdrawned from North Korea.

Meanwhile, it is July 28, 2015 that the Defendant deposited the amount equivalent to the above amount with the consignee as the Republic of Korea (Ministry of Unification under his/her jurisdiction) (the Republic of Korea did not pay the above deposit). In this regard, the Defendant’s property benefits accrued to the Defendant due to the wrongful supply of subsidies for employment.

It is not that the defendant returned it immediately after the illegal receipt, but that the defendant received it.