beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. In light of the facts charged in around 2004, the Defendant was recognized to have a family relationship terminated pursuant to the “measures to protective measures to ensure basic livelihood for those scheduled to be released from a correctional institution” and was selected as the basic recipient, and then was able to receive support even if his or her person with no family support was supported. However, the Defendant was in a state of de facto de facto dissolution with his or her dependent person and family relationship with C, such as having contact with his or her wife from around 2011 and having been under contact with
The right to receive benefits was not a person.
Nevertheless, on September 20, 201, the Defendant received KRW 81,110, and KRW 419,180,00,000 from the Busan-gu Office for Residential Benefits, and KRW 338,070, and KRW 338,070. From that point to August 19, 2016, the Defendant unlawfully received KRW 26,287,790 in total under the name of residential benefits, living benefits, etc. over 120 times, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was recovered after the Defendant’s non-support and family relationship was severed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the Defendant unlawfully received the same benefits as indicated in the above facts charged.
It is difficult to see it.
① On July 3, 1996, the Defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Drugs Control Act, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence around November 2001. On October 16, 2003, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in Credit, and on April 8, 2004, the Defendant was selected as a basic recipient on the ground that his family relationship was severed and his non-resident could not receive support even if he had to be supported.
② Around 2003, the Defendant divorced with the wife of the Defendant, and after the arrest, the Defendant did not contact with the Defendant’s children, and the Defendant’s children did not contact with the Defendant.