근로기준법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed workers B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, and R against the Labor Standards Act or the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and acquitted each of the facts charged, guilty, and appealed with respect to the remainder other than the part on which the public prosecutor dismissed the public prosecution. As such, the part on which the public prosecutor dismissed the public prosecution was dismissed was separated and finalized by the altitude of the appeal period.
Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining part except the above dismissal of prosecution.
2. Grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the defendant bears a large amount of debt at the time of the instant case among the facts charged, and the company's financial flow was light, there was an intention to acquire the defendant by deceit. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unhutiled and unfair.
3. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court, while explaining various circumstances that can be recognized by the record, determined that even if comprehensive all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud at the time of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Examining the above judgment of the lower court closely and closely by comparing the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor in the lower judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is