근로기준법위반
Defendant
All appeals filed against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor B and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. According to the records of this case regarding Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, Defendant B filed an appeal against the lower judgment on October 24, 2019, but did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal; Defendant B did not submit the grounds for appeal within the 20-day period for submitting the grounds for appeal under Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act even if the written notification of the receipt of the notification of the receipt of the trial record was received by this court on November 15, 2019; and even after examining the records, the grounds for ex officio investigation cannot be found.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A by the prosecutor
A. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the violation of the respective Labor Standards Act against the Defendant’s charges against E, F (2018 high-level 746), G, H, I, and J (2018 high-level 747) and acquitted the remainder of the charges (C and D in violation of the respective Labor Standards Act).
However, since the prosecutor appealed only to the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A which was acquitted, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A which dismissed the public prosecution is separated and confirmed as it is, and excluded from the scope of the judgment
B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the statement of the workers in the grounds for appeal is consistent and the credibility of the statement on the grounds of accusation and non-payment is recognized.
C. 1) In the appellate court’s trial process, there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction, and the first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous.
If there is no reasonable ground to believe that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, it shall not be allowed to reverse without permission the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).