Defendant 4,000,000 won.

On the other hand, only the Defendant appealed the part of conviction, and all the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal of prosecution. Therefore, the dismissal of prosecution in the first instance judgment was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part which the original court found guilty of the defendant) and the judgment of the court of second instance.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., punishment of the lower court: a fine of KRW 3 million; a fine of KRW 2 million; and a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

The defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court of first instance decided to hold a joint trial against each of the above appeal cases. Since the conviction part of the judgment of the court of first instance and each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance are in the concurrent relation of crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court of first instance should be sentenced to a single punishment at

In addition, the prosecutor changed the "30,750,000 won" in the third sentence of the 3rd sentence of the facts charged by the second instance judgment to "30,085,000 won", and the "1,20,000" in the wages of 4 AD No. 4 AD-11, 207, as "5,000", and "4,20,000" in the sum "3,535,00" as "3,535,000", and the total sum of the unpaid wages "30,750,000" as "30,000,000" in the 3rd sentence of the facts charged by the second instance judgment. Since this court has permitted this, the judgment of the second instance is also the same.