Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 5,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B is a person who operates the “D” in Kimcheon-si C, and the defendant A is the defendant B's shot.

The Defendants, despite the absence of the fact that Defendant A had worked in the above “D”, were willing to report the acquisition of employment insurance in a false manner so that Defendant A, who was at risk of giving birth, can be denied the childbirth leave expenses, childcare leave benefits, etc.

Accordingly, on October 22, 2014, Defendant B employed Defendant B at the Employment and Employment Center of 108-1 as Kimcheon-si University of 108-1 in the Ministry of Labor, Ministry of Labor and the Kimcheon Employment Center of the Ministry of Labor.

Defendant A falsely reported the acquisition of employment insurance. Defendant A received 4,050,000 leave allowances for 90 days of childbirth from December 20, 2014 to March 21, 2015, and 4,935,480 won for 7 months of leave from March 22, 2015 to October 29, 2015 eight times, and Defendant A retired from the employment center of the Seoul East Employment Center of the Ministry of Labor located in 135, as of December 1, 2015, on the ground of the closure of business at the above D.

On December 15, 2015, a false application for unemployment benefits was received 2,290,010 won for 57 days from December 15, 2015 to March 8, 2016.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to receive 11,275,490 won in total, including childbirth leave expenses, childcare leave benefits, and unemployment benefits, by fraud or other improper means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. A petition/data submitted by the Ministry of Labor;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (child birth leave expenses, leave benefits for infants, confirmation of unemployment benefits), investigation reports (referred to questions as counterpart to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Labor);

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Article 116(2) of the Insurance Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; and the choice of fines

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement of a workhouse (the Defendants asserted that they were to provide legitimate labor, but this court has duly adopted and investigated the case.