The part of the defendant labor law firm C is reversed, and this part of the case is Seoul Southern District Court.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A and B of the facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of no accusation, specification of facts charged, admissibility and probative value, or by infringing the said Defendants’ defense.

Although the above Defendants asserted that there was an error of law in not mitigated punishment against the above Defendants, who are aiding and abetting the sentencing of the lower court, the lower court maintained the first instance judgment that rendered statutory mitigation pursuant to Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the lower court did not err in its judgment contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Although the above Defendants asserted that there was an error of punishment heavier than the principal offender beyond the sentencing discretion in the judgment of the court below, it constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where the above Defendants were sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant C Labor Law Firm

A. As to the facts charged against Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), Articles 94, 90, and 81 subparag. 4 of the Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act, and Article 32 of the Criminal Act, as to the facts charged against Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), which aiding and abetting the commission of unfair labor practices, such as I and T, among the facts charged in the instant case.