근로자퇴직급여보장법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits to E and F) workers E and F arbitrarily embezzled company funds while Defendant Company was employed by Defendant Company, and Defendant Company E and F embezzled company funds. When setting off the amount of retirement allowance claims of E and F from the equal amount of money, the Defendant does not have a duty to pay retirement allowances to E and F, and thus, the judgment of innocence should be rendered.
2) Since the delinquency in payment of the national pension premium that occurred until April 20, 2015 by the National Pension Act violation (the violation of the National Pension Act) was included in the criminal facts of the violation of the National Pension Act for which the defendant received a summary order of a fine of three million won, a judgment of acquittal should be rendered on this part.
3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment
With respect to the violation of the National Pension Act among the facts charged in the instant case, a prosecutor filed an application for the change of the portion of “10,808,920 won (2,979,860 won for insurance premiums for 13 months from May 2015 to June 2016 of workers E, and 2,979,860 won for insurance premiums for 13 months from May 2015 to June 2016 of workers E, and workers G’s 2,979,860 won for insurance premiums for 13 months from May 2015 to June 13, 2016,” with respect to the violation of the National Pension Act from among the facts charged in the instant case. This court filed an application for the change of the portion of “2,979,849,200 won for insurance premiums for 13 months from May 2, 2015 to June 2016.”
Inasmuch as modified parts as above and the remaining criminal facts found guilty in the original judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the original judgment cannot be maintained in this respect.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is justified.