The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the acquittal of the lower court by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, it is found guilty on the part related to this part of the above workers and the violation of the Employment Insurance Act, since the workers in the lower court, unlike its reasoning, fall under the case where there is no recipient

B. Regarding the guilty portion of the lower judgment on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two million won of a fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants were willing to report the reason for retirement in lieu of receiving retirement allowances less than one year to the employees and to allow them to receive unemployment benefits in order to reduce the burden of retirement benefits to be paid when the employees who have worked for more than one year retire.

Defendant

A appears to be a clerical error of “8 persons” in the part not guilty of the judgment of the court below, including D and eight persons retired while serving in P.

In order to prevent unemployment benefits from being exposed to the investigation agency due to the illegal receipt of unemployment benefits, the proposal was made to the employment support center of the Ministry of Labor by proposing D, obtaining consent from D, making D, etc. apply for unemployment benefits in a false manner, and allowing D, etc. to receive unemployment benefits by unlawful means, such as ordering D, etc. to prepare a report of deprivation of employment insurance and a certificate of severance from employment as if D, etc. were retired due to the need for management and to submit it to the employment support center.

D around September 1, 2009, at the Incheon Northern Employment Support Center located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, Gyeyang-gu, 1063-12, the defendant prepared and submitted an application for unemployment benefits as if he retired from office due to business necessity. The defendants ordered T who are accounting personnel at that time to give instructions to the employees in charge of the above center unemployment benefits by facsimile.