Part 1 of the judgment of the court below which found guilty of the original judgment 2015 High 361, 2016 High 129 High Gohap and 2.

1. As to the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers W among the facts charged in the instant case, the first court below dismissed each of the charges as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers K-related workers among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the charges.

However, since the part of the judgment of the court below in the first and the second court's dismissal of the public prosecution against only the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of the dismissal of the public prosecution against both the defendant and the prosecutor, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty among the judgment of the court below in

2. The grounds for appeal by the defendant are as follows: The punishment (the judgment of the court below No. 1: the punishment of October, the suspended sentence of two years, the sum of 2015, the sum of 361 and the sum of 2016, the sum of 200,000 won, the fine of two million won for the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below, and the imprisonment of four months for the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below, four months: the imprisonment of four months, the fourth: the imprisonment of the court below; the imprisonment of four months, and the suspended sentence of one year) which is too unreasonable.

3. Before determining the reasons for an ex officio appeal, this paper examined ex officio.

In the original judgment, the four judgments were rendered to the above defendant, and the court decided to consolidate the above four cases appealed.

Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a single sentence shall be imposed for all of the offenses as a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since each of the offenses in the judgment below’s convictions 2015, 361, 2016, 129, 202, and 2, 3, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court below in the second judgment constitutes concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, each of the above parts of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

On the other hand, the part of the 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High 14 High Gohap, and the part of the 1st Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Law.