60s Receiving Basic Livelihood Benefits Despite Earning '6 Million Won a Month' Fined

Earned 311 Million KRW in 7 Years from Selling Horse Racing Information Magazines

On the 17th, the Criminal Division 3 of the Gwangju District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Tae-ho) announced that it dismissed both the appeal of Mr. A (62), who was sentenced to a fine of 7 million won in the first trial for violating the National Basic Living Security Act and fraud charges, and the prosecutor's appeal. Graphic by Asia Economy

[Asia Economy Reporter Bang Je-il] A man in his 60s who deceived local governments to continue receiving basic living subsidies despite earning hundreds of millions of won in profits was sentenced to a fine again in the appellate court.

On the 17th, the Criminal Division 3 of Gwangju District Court (Presiding Judge Kim Tae-ho) announced that it dismissed both the appeal of Mr. A (62), who was fined 7 million won in the first trial for violating the National Basic Living Security Act and fraud charges, and the prosecutor's appeal.

Mr. A was indicted for embezzling subsidies from Buk-gu Office in Gwangju by concealing the fact that he had earned income. Designated as a basic living recipient around 2005, Mr. A had been receiving basic living allowances from Buk-gu Office in Gwangju. Then, in January 2012, Mr. A signed a contract with the Korea Racing Authority Gwangju branch to sell horse racing information magazines and began earning profits. Through this contract, from August 2012 to November 2019, about seven years, Mr. A earned approximately 311 million won. Although his monthly income fluctuated significantly, he earned about 6 million won per month during this period.

As the income made it impossible for Mr. A to maintain his basic living subsidy, he concealed the profits from selling horse racing information magazines by transferring them under an acquaintance's name. Unaware of this situation, Buk-gu Office provided Mr. A with basic living subsidies worth about 7.79 million won from 2012 to 2013 based on falsified income reports.

The court stated, "The defendant fraudulently received social benefits intended to guarantee the minimum living standards and housing stability for people in difficult circumstances, which is a serious offense. The defendant shows no remorse and consistently denies the crime. However, since the original sentence does not appear excessively harsh or lenient, both appeals are dismissed," explaining the sentencing rationale.