근로기준법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the penalty amounting to five million won, the penalty amounting to five million won, and the penalty amounting to fifteen million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Act on the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property”) with respect to the additional collection charges, in cases where the property subject to corruption may be confiscated, and where it is deemed impossible to confiscate it or is not reasonable to confiscate it, the equivalent amount shall be additionally collected. The additional collection prescribed by the Act on the Destruction and Loss of Corruption Property aims to deprive the Defendant of unlawful profits and prevent the Defendant from possessing it. As such, the amount of profit actually acquired by the Defendant shall be additionally collected.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant acquired 15 million won (4 million won + 7 million won + 4 million won) due to the crime of this case. The above 15 million won acquired by the defendant is criminal proceeds under Article 2 subparagraph 2 (a) of the Act on the Loss of Decomposed Property, and is apparent that they are perishable property. Thus, the amount to be collected as necessary from the defendant pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Loss of Decomposed Property is 15 million won.
B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the main sentence, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s given that no new data on sentencing have been submitted in the trial and the sentencing grounds revealed in the instant pleadings are considered in full view of all the factors revealed in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.
It does not appear.
(c)
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.