근로기준법위반등
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.
1. As to the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits against workers in the case of 2017 Godan1529 among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution on the ground that each worker expressed his/her intent not to punish the Defendant after the prosecution, and found the remainder of the facts charged guilty.
The prosecutor did not appeal against this, and the defendant appealed from the guilty portion on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing as seen below. Thus, the dismissal of prosecution in the judgment below was separately determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on a different premise even though the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation of mistake of facts, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(A) The defendant raised a dispute over the employee status of D at the court below, but the court below did not explicitly dispute the employee status of D.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of social service activities) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, unless the defendant is led to confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do481, May 14, 1996). In full view of the following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant had a criminal intent of deceptiveation at least by the defendant.
(1) The defendant is a victim company on behalf of the advertiser H.