A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim AZ, BA, BB, BC, and.

Before the determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant submitted a written withdrawal of complaint and written agreement to the lower court by mutual agreement with workers CD, CE,CC (title prior to the name: BP), CF, CG, etc. The offense of violating the Labor Standards Act due to the violation of the duty to liquidate money and valuables by workers cannot be prosecuted against the intent expressed by the victim under Article 109(2) of the same Act, and thus, the prosecution against this part of the facts charged should be dismissed under Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance with the intention of the victim

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination, it is examined ex officio as to the violation of each Labor Standards Act with respect to the victim AZ, BA, BB, BC, BD, BE, BF, BU, BV, BX, BY, BY, and CA and CB among the facts charged in this case.

1) Amendment of the indictment to the effect that each Labor Standards Act is violated against the victim AZ, BB, BB, BD, BE, BF, BT, BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, and BZ is permitted only to the extent recognized as identical to the facts charged. In the event there is an application for amendment of the indictment to the effect that the facts constituting the crime not recognized as identical to the facts charged are added to the facts charged, the court shall dismiss the application for amendment (Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social facts, which form the basis of the facts, are the same in basic respect. However, in determining the identity of the basic facts, the defendant's act and the social facts, in mind, should be based on the function of the identity of the facts, and the normative elements should also be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1438, May 14, 199).