2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the lower court, and the circumstances in which the defendant alleged unfair reasons for sentencing have already been reflected in the judgment of the lower court, and the defendant deceivings the victims of the crime by deceiving them. In light of the motive, method, frequency, etc. of the crime, the crime is bad, the total amount of fraud damage did not reach an agreement and did not recover from damage, the defendant has a variety of criminal convictions, and the defendant has a different kind of criminal convictions, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances in this case and the records after the crime are considered to be excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below (Provided, That Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act, which is the applicable law to the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act, was amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017; the above Act was enforced from May 29, 2018.

Therefore, according to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “the pertinent legal provision on criminal facts of 1.” in the application of the judgment of the court below ex officio is “B” under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act.