근로기준법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing) D, E, and F did not provide the Defendant with labor or have concluded an employment contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant did not delegate G with the execution of labor contracts with D, E, and F.
In addition, the punishment (fine 5 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
The court below rejected the above assertion by properly explaining the judgment. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and this court, the judgment of the court below is legitimate, and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
B. The determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.
However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.
In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing of Defendant after the lower judgment.
(e).