근로자퇴직급여보장법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, E was treated as retirement without attending the company from December 8, 2012 to January 13, 2013. Since the continuous period of employment is less than one year, the Defendant is not obliged to pay retirement allowances to E.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing (the sentencing of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Although the Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the factual misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on detailed grounds.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence, the lower court’s determination that rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is sufficiently acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
The fact that there is no criminal conviction against the defendant for the judgment of the illegal argument of sentencing, and that there is no economic difficulty, etc. are favorable conditions for sentencing.
However, considering the fact that the Defendant did not agree with E and still did not pay retirement allowances, there is no significant change of circumstances to be considered additionally in sentencing, and other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, environment, details and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to appeal.