Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The appeal was filed only by the defendant against the judgment of the court prior to remand, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment prior to remand on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the defendant's right to receive assistance from a public defender under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the prosecutor's appeal was not filed against the above judgment of dismissal, and the part of the prosecutor's appeal is finalized as is, the scope of the

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles by the Defendant is not only the custodian of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) but also the employer under the Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant, as a manager of D, has made efforts to recover the company, but the management status of the company has deteriorated due to financial crisis, astronomical crisis, and marine accidents that occurred from September 2008, and thus, became unable to pay wages to employees due to the shortage of funds due to financial difficulties even though the Defendant made best efforts to provide personal property as security, etc., so there is a reason to be responsible for the crime of this case.

The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the event of a decision on the commencement of corporate reorganization procedure against mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the right to manage the business of the company and the management and disposal of the assets under Article 53 (1) of the former Company Reorganization Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005) is exclusively vested in the administrator, so the reorganization company's administrator is in the status of employer in the employment relationship. < Amended by Act No. 11370,