A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Labor Standards Act is separately determined as it is, the dismissal part is excluded from the judgment of this court.

2. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

[Defendant and his defense counsel asserted mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the whole facts charged of this case through the submission of each of the statements at May 18, 2017 (the third hearing date of this case) and the defense counsel's written opinion at May 31, 2017 and the written summary of oral argument at June 20, 2017, after the expiration of the period for submitting the written reason for appeal (up to April 6, 2017) (the period for submitting the written reason for appeal, until April 6, 2017). However, all of the aforementioned arguments by Defendant and their defense counsel were raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the written reason for appeal, and are not legitimate grounds for appeal.

However, as examined below, among each of the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in this case, and the members permitted it, and the subject of the judgment was changed. The above violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.