근로기준법위반등
The judgment below
Part 4 of the judgment of conviction shall be reversed.
8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 4 of the judgment of the defendant.
1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.
However, as the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment below only against the conviction, and did not appeal against the dismissal of prosecution, the dismissal of prosecution in the judgment below was separated and finalized as it is.
Therefore, the judgment of this court is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment for the crime No. 4 of the Defendant’s holding (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (the 1, 2, 3, and 5 at the market time: imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 4 years of suspended sentence, and 8 months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.
3. Determination
A. It is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s determination on the grounds of unfair sentencing regarding the first, second, third, and fifth crimes, in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances favorable to the defendant and unfavorable circumstances, the lower court determined a sentence on this part, taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the lower court’s sentence on this part disadvantageous to the defendant.
In addition, the court below recognized all of the sentencing factors as the grounds for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, circumstances after committing the crime, etc., and the preparation and exercise of qualification and personal documents (the part concerning the crime No. 1 and No. 2 at the time of the trial) that were disputed by the court below, and the victim B of the crime of occupational embezzlement was operated in the same manner as the one of the defendant company.