A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (as to the acquittal portion), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on each of the charges against Defendant B and Defendant A, even though the employer employed 8 workers (AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AK, AL, and AM), including the AF working at the “N apartment new construction work” site, is difficult to recognize that Defendant B is an employer who employs 8 workers.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (the suspended sentence of three years and 80 hours in imprisonment for one year and six months, the fine of three million won in case of Defendant B, and the fine of three million won in case of Defendant C) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found Defendant B and Defendant A not guilty of each of the charges on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize Defendant B as an employer employed by the said eight workers, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. In so doing, the lower court acquitted Defendant B and Defendant A of this part of the charges, based on the following: (a) in the lower court’s judgment, the eight workers were at the site of “N apartment new construction project” under contact with C; (b) the testimony was given to the purport that C received work instructions; and (c) the said eight workers agreed with C.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the public prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015