The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The Defendant, without trade name, is a person engaged in personal construction business without a trade name, who has received a subcontract for metal interior works from a construction business entity to employ a daily employed worker and then conducts the relevant construction work along with him/her.

A substitute payment is a system under which the State makes a substitute payment to retired workers without receiving wages, suspension allowances, and retirement allowances due to the bankruptcy of the enterprise, and no person may receive a substitute payment by fraudulent or other unlawful means.

Nevertheless, the Defendant conspiredd with G, etc., which operated E and F (State), which operated the original state D, to “illegal receipt of substitute payment from the State by pretending to meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payment such as the above, even though it does not meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payment as above.”

D) On July 1, 2009, the Defendant received substitute payments through D (State) with the purport that, through D (State) operator E, the Defendant submitted an application for substitute payment to a labor inspector under the name of the labor inspector under the jurisdiction of Yangyang-gu Office to the effect that, “A substitute payment was not made due to the company’s bankruptcy, as an employee affiliated with D (State)” was not made, at the office of Yangyang-gu Office of the High Local Employment and Labor Office of Jung-gu, Busan-gu, 1010, Gyeonggi-gu, 1010.

7. Around 15, a substitute payment of KRW 7,080,000 was received.

However, the Defendant, as a personal constructor who handles metal interior works upon receiving a subcontract from the above D with the metal interior works, was not an employee belonging to the above D, and thus, did not meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payments due to the lack of wages in arrears from D, notified E of the Defendant’s neck, substitute payment receipt passbook, and identification card copy, and the above E knew of the above circumstances, the Defendant provided the above Defendant with the above substitute payment to the labor inspector via Certified Labor Affairs Consultant H.