beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On January 2009, E apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) entered into a guard contract with D Co., Ltd., a company run by the Defendant for the purpose of entrusting the instant apartment security service, which is not a contract for work, but a delegation contract.
However, the Defendant employed persons aged 60 years or older who are not persons subject to the National Pension and employment insurance coverage in order to carry out the instant apartment security business, it is recognized that the Defendant received the reverse payment for expenses, including the amount equivalent to the national pension and employment insurance premiums of persons eligible to receive the national pension and employment insurance, by deceiving the representative meeting of the occupants of the instant apartment from January 2, 2009 to September 2015.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of D, a company that is an apartment management service company that is entrusted with the instant apartment and management services from January 2009 to September 2015.
On January 209, the Defendant entered into a calendar contract for the guard of the instant apartment at the apartment management office of the instant apartment, and filed a claim for the basic pay per security guard (876,000 won), night allowances (97,30 won), annual allowances (40,583 won), retirement reserve (84,549 won), four major insurance premium (96,211 won), clothes expenses (5,000 won), and 1,229,673 won including company’s leap (30,000 won), and the total amount of expenses for the guard for four security guards (1,229,692 won (1,29,673 won) x 44 won.
However, in fact, the security guards employed in D were most aged 60 years or older, and all security guards employed in the apartment of this case were aged 60 years or older, and thus, the Defendant was demanded to add and pay the station expenses for the use of expenses in falsehood, even though they were not subject to the claim of the National Pension KRW 45,626 and employment insurance KRW 13,180 from the beginning.
Accordingly, the defendant is the apartment of this case.