All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (a year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, Defendant C: 10 months of suspended execution, and additional collection) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the Defendants is unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) M&D misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant B) Defendant B’s violation of the Labor Standards Act is the Act on Special Cases Concerning Forfeiture and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”).

(2) The lower court erred by failing to impose additional collection as to Defendant B’s violation of the Labor Standards Act, thereby omitting this matter. 2) Each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Of the criminal facts against Defendant B, the violation of the Labor Standards Act, which participated in the employment of another person for profit, among the criminal facts against Defendant B, constitutes a corruption crime as provided by the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property.

On the other hand, however, collection for the value of the perishable property pursuant to Article 5(1) and Article 3(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property is an arbitrary collection.

(A) In the indictment, the prosecutor also tried to impose penalty on Defendant B, and stated Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act instead of Articles 5(1) and 3(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property as applicable provisions of law. Therefore, even if the court below did not render a judgment of conviction on Defendant B’s violation of the Labor Standards Act, it is difficult to view that the court omitted the collection of penalty for corruption property, which should be collected as necessary, regardless of whether the sentencing is appropriate or not, and the prior prosecutor’s assertion on this different premise is without merit.

B. Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor