근로기준법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. The Dog and the defendant filed a petition of appeal on January 9, 2020, and this court appointed a state appointed defense counsel on January 31, 2020, and the notification of the receipt of the trial record was served on February 3, 2020, and the defendant was served on the state appointed defense counsel on February 5, 2020. On February 7, 2020, the defendant appointed the attorney Kim Jong-sung as a private defense counsel and revoked the appointment of the state appointed defense counsel on February 7, 2020.
A private defense counsel filed an appellate brief with the court on March 17, 2020, where 20 days from the date of receipt of the above notification of the receipt of the trial records, and where a private defense counsel is appointed after the notification of the receipt of the trial records, the private defense counsel does not separately notify the private defense counsel of the receipt of the notification of the trial records (Article 361-2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). This is inappropriate because the time limit for filing the appellate brief
However, as examined below, the court below did not dismiss the defendant's appeal on the grounds of the Dog of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's imprisonment with labor for two years is too unreasonable on the date of the first trial of the court of appeal). The records of ex officio determination on April 18, 2019 are as follows: the defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution for four months of imprisonment with labor due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act in the Jungyang Branch Branch of the Government District Court on April 18, 2019, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2019. Since the crime of this case and the violation of the Labor Standards Act for which judgment became final and conclusive are related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity with the case
Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment cannot be maintained as it omitted from the application of statutes.
3. The judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for ex officio reversal.