A. In fact, although a person who actually operated C and D hospital is not the defendant, the court below found the defendant as an employer who bears the duty to pay wages, etc., and found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the relevant legal principles were not newly revealed in the course of the trial, when the appellate court intends to re-examine the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Considering the difference between the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance trial and the appellate trial based on the spirit of the substantial direct trial principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented trial-oriented principle, in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in the conclusion of the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance trial in the light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial and the result of the further examination of evidence by the time of the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court, on the sole basis that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance is different from the judgment made by the appellate court, shall be without permission, on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial is significantly unfair.