근로기준법위반등
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
except that this judgment.
1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. The judgment is due to the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant, while holding office as the representative director of L (ju), embezzled, misappropriation, and delayed payment of wages of KRW 300 million to KRW 200 million; and (b) not less than the nature of the crime in light of the amount of damage and the method of criminal punishment, etc. due to the refluence of the amount exceeding KRW 100 million to C; (c) there are a large number of criminal records against the Defendant; and (d) there are criminal records of the same kind of violation
However, with respect to the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Retirement Benefits for Workers, 21 of the total victims do not want to be punished by the Defendant, 23 of the 23 victims who did not agree, and 30,000 won of the remaining victims were recovered, and 100,000 won of the corporation’s incorporation funds were immediately returned, with respect to occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust, and 9,81,000 won used by the Defendant’s wife’s house under his wife’s name as security was sold by auction and repaid. The amount deposited by the Defendant with his personal funds from February 27, 2015 to May 29, 2015 after the crime was recovered from damage related to the remaining embezzlement and occupational breach of trust.
There are circumstances to see that the total amount of KRW 50 million as stated in the facts charged is used as a fund for the purchase of private land in B with respect to the occupational embezzlement charged as a principal offender in B, and there is no profit for the defendant. In relation to the crime of the crime of the misappropriation of breach of trust, B led by B, and the defendant seems to have been responsible for the joint principal offender as the representative director.
In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing, such as equity with accomplices, age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, means and results, scale of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc.