The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Although the Defendant did not have worked at the construction site for a period from November 6, 2013 to July 2015, the Defendant received unemployment benefits in an unlawful manner by filing an application for recognition of unemployment benefits at the port branch office of the Daegu Regional Labor Agency branch office of the Korea Employment and Labor Agency located in North-gu, 221 on July 23, 2015, by reporting false history as if he had worked at the construction site, such as the new construction site of D apartment, and obtaining unemployment recognition by receiving the unemployment benefits of KRW 3,870,000 from August 6, 2015 to October 27, 2015, as in the list of crimes.

2. In light of the following facts, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor. The conviction is to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conclude that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's benefit as the defendant's interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5662, Dec. 24, 2002, etc.). As to the instant case, the public prosecutor indicted the defendant that he applied for the benefits and received the benefits regardless of the fact that the defendant was not eligible for the benefits, since the defendant's total insured unit period under Article 41 of the Insurance Act between the 18 months immediately preceding this title and the insured period under Article 40 (1) 1 of the same Act was not "180 days before this title."

In this regard, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, ① the Defendant’s first-aid service income earner was reported by the labor authorities to the National Tax Service as a daily income earner during the period of unemployment benefits and requested investigation to the effect that it is doubtful of the illegal receipt. The Defendant’s investigation was commenced during the period of the above investigation, and the part of the daily work for which the above investigation was requested.