Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who has substantially operated the LABD in the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

The Defendant, in collusion with E, is implementing the employment internship program for youth employment in small and medium enterprises in the Ministry of Labor, and concluded an agreement with an operating institution that is entrusted with the business to employ internship employees to receive subsidies from the relevant employment center. On April 2014, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she could receive subsidies from the relevant employment center, and was willing to receive subsidies by submitting the standard internship support agreement, etc. as if he/she had worked as the internship employee.

Accordingly, around June 10, 2014, E submitted a written application for subsidies for internship to the effect that “Around May 12, 2014, at the foregoing (State) D office of Gwangju Employment Center as F, G, H, I, and J as an intern employee and paid wages.”

However, in fact, F, G, H, I, and J had already been employed as a policeman on April 2014, and thus did not meet the requirements for receiving the internship subsidy.

In collusion with E, the Defendant received subsidies of KRW 1,758,050 from the Ministry of Labor around July 23, 2014, in collusion with E, I, and K, and received subsidies of KRW 13,735,670 and subsidies of KRW 7,687,470 for full-time conversion, in collusion with E, I, and K, and received subsidies by fraudulent or other unlawful means, as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the defendant E concerning the suspect interrogation protocol (refinite, refinite, E);

1. Part of the legal statement of witness E (the actual practice at the time was dealt with);

According to the E’s statement at the prosecutor’s office and testimony at the court, the Defendant had an intentional intention on the part of the Defendant, as the employees already employed by the Defendant were not eligible for the internship subsidy.

[3]

1.The police of I.S.