부정수표단속법위반등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. The court below's scope of judgment in this case sentenced the dismissal of prosecution as to the violation of the Control of Illegal Check Control Act and the violation of the Labor Standards Act among the facts charged in this case, but only the defendant appealed against the guilty part. Since the dismissal of prosecution which was not appealed by both parties became final and conclusive, the scope of judgment in this court is limited
2. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. In light of the fact that among the defaulted checks issued by the Defendant, the total amount of the unrepaid checks exceeds approximately KRW 260 million, the total amount of wages paid to workers is about KRW 17 million, and the Defendant left China after committing each of the crimes of this case and stays there for about four years, etc., it is reasonable to strictly punish the Defendant, in view of the fact that there is no responsible attitude to recover damage caused by each of the crimes of this case.
However, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses and divided his mistake; (b) the Defendant agreed with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. for embezzlement victims; (c) the Defendant’s final holder of the number of units No. 11 of the attached Table of Crimes (1) at the time of original adjudication during the previous adjudication; and (d) AH agreed with AH, the last holder of the number of units No. 11 of the attached Table of Crimes (1) at the time of original adjudication; and (b) the Defendant deposited 1680,000 won to 16 workers for the payment of overdue wages; (c) the Defendant did not have any power to commit a crime exceeding fines; (d) the Defendant’s health status is insufficient; and (e) other various circumstances that are conditions for the sentencing specified in the arguments and the records of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the offense; and (e) the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion is unreasonable.
4. Conclusion.