Therefore, since only the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor's rejection of prosecution which the prosecutor did not appeal was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the court below's punishment (the fine of KRW 500,000 and the suspended sentence) is too unfeasible when considering the fact that the defendant does not recognize the criminal facts of this case and the importance of wages and retirement allowances paid to workers, etc.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant led to a party trial, and led to the confession of all of the instant crimes.

In addition, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment as there is no particular new sentencing data in the trial court, and in full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.