근로기준법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on factual mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows.
① From August 23, 2010 to September 28, 2010, from June 23, 2011 to July 20, 2011, from September 5, 2011 to October 4, 2011, and from September 12, 201 to November 7, 2012, E was retired during the above period, and it was erroneous for calculating all of the above periods during the period of employment.
② Since March 2013, the Defendant paid retirement allowances in advance to workers by adding 10,000 won to the daily wage agreed upon from March 2013, there is no unpaid retirement allowances.
③ While the Defendant’s place of business does not pay retirement allowances from January 201 to November 201, 201 during the period in which four or less employees worked for the Defendant’s place of business, the Defendant’s payment of retirement allowances is made only 50% of retirement allowances from December 2, 201 to December 201, it erred by calculating the total amount of retirement allowances for the entire period.
B. Even if the criminal defendant is found guilty, the sentence (one million won penalty) that the court below sentenced is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (1) 1
A. (1) The court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the argument under the title "the judgment on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, on the grounds that the defendant and the defense counsel in the judgment of the court below are the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the above records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the defendant
subsection (b) of this section.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
(2) 1-2
A. (3) The evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment on the assertion (E, F.).