1. Violation of the Subsidy Management Act

B. Violation of the Local Finance Act

(c) Fraud;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

1.(b) A. B.C. producer

Pl. Pl. Bl.

2.(a)(d) ; (e) Newly Inserted by Act No. 1010, Dec. 1, 201;

Residence

Kim Jong-hee (Court Prosecution) and Kim Shee (Court Decision)

Attorney Doh (for the defendant's new director)

December 17, 2020

1. Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of twenty million won; or

To order the above defendant to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

2. The new directors of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year; and

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and the above defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

Criminal History Office

Defendant B Research Co., Ltd. is a prospective social company established for online education, etc. in Ulsan Jung-gu and is a company certified as a social company around March 2018, and Defendant New Director is a person who actually operates the above corporation B.

1. Defendant New Director

(a) Forgery of private documents or uttering of private documents;

The defendant, in order to receive job creation subsidies for employees employed by B, should be selected as personnel expenses subsidies in the "examination of labor cost subsidies" conducted by the Ulsan-gu Office each year, and the above examination should be submitted to the vulnerable class, with the knowledge of the fact that the defendant provided social services to the vulnerable class, he would arbitrarily pass the examination by forging the "certificate of provision of social services" with the content that he provided educational services to the children's centers in Ulsan-gu.

On April 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) prepared a document stating that he/she was provided with an English language conference of the Switzerland migrants by using a computer in the said Dou Office; (b) entered “Hia’s regional child center” and “the representative column” in the Hyi institution column; (c) attached an image file, which is the director of the regional child center; and (d) printed it back to the Defendant; (c) submitted it to the public official belonging to the Ulsan-gu Office of Ulsan-gu from April 3, 2017 to April 25, 2019; and (d) forged 36 copies of the confirmation document under the name of the representative of the regional child center from April 1, 2017 to April 25, 2019, as shown in attached Table 1, and exercised it.

(b) Fraud;

As above, the Defendant passed the examination of subsidization for personnel expenses for social enterprises in 2017 by submitting a written confirmation under the name of the representative of a regional children's center, and applied for subsidization for job creation to employees employed by BE at the Ulsan-gu Office for the victim Ulsan-gu, as if he passed the aforementioned examination normally on July 2017. However, the Defendant was passing the examination of subsidization for personnel expenses by submitting a written confirmation under the name of the representative of a regional children's center that was forged as above. However, in the case of some workers who reported as if the Defendant employed BE, the Defendant actually worked for a period less than time than time when he did not work as producer B or reported.

Around July 26, 2017, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) received KRW 887,270 from the victim as a subsidy for labor cost**; (c) from around that time to April 23, 2019, the Defendant received total of 249,682,240 won of subsidies to 16 workers, as shown in the attached Table 2 of the Crime List from around that time, to April 23, 2019.

No person shall receive subsidies or local subsidies by false application or by other fraudulent means.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as described in the foregoing paragraph (b), submitted a forged certificate and passed the review of personnel expenses, and was granted KRW 187,261,680 in total and KRW 62,420,560 in total and KRW 62,420,560 in total and KRW 62,420,560 in local subsidies as indicated in the attached Table 2 from around that time to April 23, 2019, by applying for job creation business subsidies to workers who have worked for hours less than those that had not worked as a producer or worked as a producer, around July 26, 2017.

2. Defendant B, Inc.

The Defendant’s employee, at the same time and place as stated in Section 1(c) of the facts charged, committed a violation as described in Section 1(c) of the facts charged in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

(hereinafter omitted)

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) New directors of the defendant: Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud), Article 231 of the Criminal Act, Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act, Article 40 Subparag. 1 of the Subsidy Management Act (the point of receiving subsidies in an unlawful manner) and Article 97(1) of the Local Finance Act (the point of receiving local subsidies in an unlawful manner);

(b) Defendant B/C producer: Articles 43 and 40 subparagraph 1 of the Subsidy Management Act (the fact that he/she has received a subsidy by illegal means) and Articles 98 and 97 (1) of the Local Finance Act (the fact that he/she has received a local subsidy by illegal means);

1. Commercial competition;

(a) New directors of the defendant: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Fraud, violation of the Subsidy Management Act, and violation of the Local Finance Act, and statutory penalty and punishment prescribed for a violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies which are the largest sentence);

(b) A producer for defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the violation of the Subsidy Management Act and the violation of the Local Finance Act, and the punishment imposed on the violation of the Local Finance Act with heavier subsidies);

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant New Director: Selection of Imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant New Directors: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant New Directors: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B. Research Company: The Defendants for the reasons for sentencing in Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act operated a social company for the purpose of creating jobs for the socially disadvantaged class and providing social services to the socially disadvantaged class. However, since the above project is a project for which a large amount of subsidies is provided on a large scale, the Defendants are responsible for complying with very strict provisions concerning the claim for subsidies, examination procedures and the use of subsidies and maintaining its authenticity. The Defendants used unlawful means such as forging documents in the process of granting subsidies required for strict verification as above and claimed for personnel expenses for false workers. The corresponding punishment is required.

The Defendants asserted that: (a) it was merely for the procedural convenience of forging and using a written confirmation of social services in order to review personnel expenses; and (b) the Defendants provided each organization with social services, such as the content of the said written confirmation. However, in the case of certain organizations, the Defendants first received only a string PC that could use the string PC online from the Defendants; and (c) did not actually use the relevant services; and (d) as such, repeatedly forged documents to the Defendants, as if the said organization drafted the written confirmation of social services to the effect that the said organization actually received the relevant services on a regular basis, may be deemed to have set up to a certain extent the Defendants forged documents.

However, the subsidies paid to 249,682,240 won by the Defendants to 249,682,240 won for false workers are limited to 9,061,680 won, and the subsidies for personnel expenses granted to 2 Korean regular workers except the above 2 persons are not confirmed to have a problem in the employee’s work itself. In the case of foreign workers, although there are some differences in the details, the amount equivalent to the wages that the Defendants expressed in the request for the subsidies was actually paid to foreign workers. However, the subsidies were used for the business purpose and were continuously supplied to the Defendants for a large amount of personnel expenses, and have no intention to acquire unjust profits by denying the subsidies for labor expenses.

The punishment of each sentence shall be determined as per the order, in consideration of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendants operated a social company with their own authenticity and caused to commit a crime, the returned subsidies paid to two false workers, and the absence of the same kind of criminal records.

Judges Kim Yong-hee

* The attachment list omitted