The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In fact-finding, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act, even though the Defendant did not give prior notice 30 days prior notice and dismissed E on October 31, 2018, and did not fall under the exception under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the suspended or suspended sentence of KRW 200,00,000) is deemed unreasonable.

2. In a criminal trial for determining a mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to a failure, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). In addition, in a case where the first instance court rendered a judgment not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to exclude reasonable doubt after undergoing the examination of evidence, such as the examination of witness, in light of the fact that the criminal appellate court has the character as a post-trial trial even after deceiving the Defendant, and the spirit of substantial direct cross-examination under the Criminal Procedure Act, etc., the first instance court may raise probability or doubt as to the facts that

Even if it does not reach the extent of sufficiently resolving the reasonable suspicion caused by the first instance trial, such circumstance alone alone alone does not readily conclude that there was an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the first instance court that lack of proof of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do11428, Feb. 18, 2016). The lower court’s judgment is in detail based on its determination.