The defendant is innocent.

1. On August 2014, the Defendant: (a) provided C’s resident registration certificate, etc. to A, who is an operator of the said business, using the name of B, who is a cleaning business entity B; and (b) provided C’s resident registration number, etc.; and (c) reported the insured status under the name of P employment insurance at the Sungnam Employment Center in Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si; and (d) made C’s name and resident registration number recorded in the name of C, thereby denying another’s resident registration number.

2. The facts charged in the instant case indicate that D himself “C” and provided C’s resident registration number to the Defendant, and the subject of the act is “D” as the subject of the act in the facts charged as stated in D’s indictment of this case, and the prosecutor does not modify the indictment.

was made.

On the other hand, while employing D, the Defendant stated C’s resident registration number provided by D in the employment insurance status report with knowledge that D was “C”.

Therefore, the Defendant reported the insured status under employment insurance with knowledge that D’s resident registration number was unlawfully used by the prosecutor solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

It is difficult to see it.

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to the proviso of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act