beta
Text
The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The abstract of facts constituting an offense charged shall not receive unemployment benefits by fraud or other improper means;
On May 9, 2016, the Defendant applied for unemployment benefits to the Daegu Seo-gu Job Center, and received unemployment benefits benefits from the Ministry of Labor and recognized the eligibility for unemployment benefits.
5. The payment of unemployment benefits was made from around 23.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, from July 1, 2016 to October 1, 2016, did not report to the Ministry of Labor on the fact that he/she worked for daily use at the E-cafeteria operated by D located in Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, and did not report to the Ministry of Labor on July 19, 2016.
8. 23. Minority 1,519,560 won, and the same year.
9. The sum of KRW 4,949,410, including KRW 911,730, around 13 October of the same year and KRW 1,302,480 around 13 October of the same year was remitted to the Daegu Bank account (F) in the name of the defendant as unemployment benefits.
Accordingly, the Defendant received false unemployment benefits.
2. Determination:
A. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which is able to lead a judge to a reasonable doubt beyond a reasonable doubt. If such proof is insufficient, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, the conviction cannot be rendered against the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630, Mar. 27, 2014). (b) “False or other unlawful means” under Article 116(2) of the Employment Insurance Act refers to any unlawful act committed by a person who is generally ineligible for benefits, i.e., in which a person having wage and salary income fails to fulfill his/her duty to report. Examining this case in light of the witness D’s legal statement, evidence submitted by the prosecutor from July 1, 2016 to October 12, 201 of the same year, including the witness witness’s statement, is merely the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s office (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do7630, Apr. 2, 2016).