산지관리법위반등
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the dismissed part among the public prosecution, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by a fine not exceeding thirty.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers F, G, and H and the violation of the Workers’ Retirement Benefit Security Act, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged. The Defendant appealed from the judgment of the lower court on the grounds that sentencing was unfair and the prosecutor did not appeal against the judgment of the lower court, thereby dismissing the public prosecution among the judgment of the lower court became final and conclusive separately. Thus, the scope of the judgment of the lower court
2. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and fine of 30,000,000) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.
3. In light of the circumstances, methods, and contents of each of the instant offenses, the crime is not good, and the size of the mountainous district unlawfully used by the Defendant is considerably wide, even before the instant case, the Defendant committed a violation of the Labor Standards Act and was punished as a violation of the Forestry Act, etc. However, the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant offenses, while the Defendant appears to have an attitude to recognize and reflect all of the instant offenses. On August 3, 2016, the Defendant performed construction works for restoring the original state of the instant mountainous district unlawfully used, and was confirmed to restore the original state from the Jeju Mayor on August 3, 2016, and the Defendant deposited the amount of unpaid wages for Q and R in the first instance trial, and workers Qu also appears to have received partial repayment of unpaid wages through the auction procedure for real estate owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that the Defendant’s punishment was unfair and reasonable.
4. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is reasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court below is against Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.