근로기준법위반
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. The court below dismissed the prosecution against the defendant as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to B among the facts charged against the defendant, and sentenced the conviction on the remaining facts charged. Since only the defendant appealeds from the judgment below on the ground of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing, the part of the judgment below dismissing the prosecution which the prosecutor did not appeal was separated and finalized.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not prepare a written labor contract with E, but expressed to E the fact that “the weekly holiday allowance is included in the Si’s pay,” and entered into a urgency agreement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
3. In the first instance trial, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with the same content as the facts constituting an offense in the part of the judgment of the court below [the reasons for the judgment which was used again for the conviction of the judgment of the court below], and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from reversal because
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
4. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
The witness E of the court below did not agree to include the weekly holiday allowance in the Si at the time of the oral conclusion of the original labor contract, and thereafter, the witness E of the court below requested the preparation of a labor contract several times, but the defendant presented the labor contract.