폭행등
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.
A fine shall be imposed on the defendant 1,500.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, at the time and place of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, committed assault, misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles). The Defendant, at the time and place of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, did not put the victim’s neck, attached the left chest, carried the victim’s clothes and left shoulder to leave the place, and such act was difficult to see that it was a assault, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant convicted him of the assault.
B) Although the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire at the time and place of the crime as indicated in the lower judgment, the victim first expressed the victim’s desire as a defect. As such, there was no intention of insult, and constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of insult, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2) The lower court’s sentence (one million won in penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. It is acknowledged that the Defendant, as an employer, did not pay 4 million won for unemployment allowances and 2 million won for dismissal allowances to the employee as an employer. However, under the interpretation of Article 37 of the Seafarers’ Act, even though he/she is a seafarer who has continued to work for at least six months under Article 55 of the Seafarers’ Act and is eligible for unemployment allowances, he/she does not have an obligation to pay unemployment allowances to theO because the period of work of theO is over one month and is over one month. ② Since theO terminated a labor contract due to reasons attributable to the O’s fault, he/she did not have an obligation to pay unemployment allowances pursuant to Article 37 subparag. 1 of the Seafarers’ Act, and ③ even if the contract was terminated due to the O’s fault, he/she did not have an obligation to pay pre-employment allowances, even if he/she did not pay pre-employment allowances.