logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017고정2883
사회복지사업법위반
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The facts charged C is a person who has been in charge of the management of elderly job welfare programs (F) and the payment of activity subsidy to the elderly participating in the job under the E-employment support department located in E-job from February 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016, and the Defendant worked by C.

The head of the E facility is a person who comprehensively manages the overall affairs of the welfare center.

C Around October 2015 to December 2016, a social welfare subsidy (operation subsidy) granted from e-mail viewing by taking charge of welfare programs for elderly workers in the above E (F) from around October 2015 to around December 2016, was duly paid to elderly citizens who actually participated in the job programs, taking advantage of the fact that some elderly citizens who were unable to engage in financial transactions are entitled to receive cash activity expenses, and was falsely registered and kept with the renouncer in the job program for elderly citizens who actually failed to participate in the job programs, and then used it for personal use and embezzled total of KRW 26,897,820 for personal consumption over 135 times as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

The defendant committed the above violation against C's act, which is an employee of the defendant at the above date and place.

2. Determination

A. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts as follows:

E is not a social welfare foundation but a social welfare facility.

In Sung-si, the G Foundation provided buildings and facilities and entrusted their operation to the G Foundation, and the G Foundation reported and operated them as welfare facilities.

The defendant was appointed not as the representative of social welfare foundation but as the director of social welfare foundation E.

Therefore, Article 56 (Joint Penalty Provisions) of the Social Welfare Business Act is not applicable to C because it is not an individual employee of the defendant.

B. The above arguments are examined as follows.

According to Article 56 (Joint Penalty Provisions) of the Social Welfare Business Act, a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee, or other servant of a corporation or an individual.

arrow