근로기준법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and for three months, respectively.
except that this judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendants were in a state of entering into a subcontract contract equivalent to KRW 116,270,000 for construction cost at the time of entering into the instant material supply contract. Therefore, the Defendants had the intent and ability to pay KRW 14 million for the instant material price, and do not have acquired money by deceiving the victims.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (one year of imprisonment, four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.
The court below rejected the above argument and found the defendants guilty on the facts charged of this case by explaining the five side of the judgment, and compared the records and closely with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants did not have the intent or ability to pay the price even if they received the materials from the injured party, and that the defendants had the criminal intent to obtain the materials by deceptiveation at least.
Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.
B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, Defendant A committed a violation of each of the Labor Standards Act by repeating six times the period of punishment for the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and the Defendants were punished as a crime of fraud, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.
Defendant
A paid 5.6 million won as substitute payment to Workers Q in the first instance, and the Defendants agreed to pay 12 million won in total to the victims of fraud P when the Defendants were in the first instance, and made efforts for damage such as the agreement to pay 12 million won in total to the victims of fraud, and the Defendants did not have any criminal records of the same kind exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.
In addition, the age, sex, environment, family relationship of the Defendants.