The conviction part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the form of punishment) sentenced by the court below (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to judgment.

This court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases of the first instance judgment of the second instance judgment against the defendant, and on the other hand, each of the offenses committed in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is a concurrent offense under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so in this regard, the first and second lower judgment shall be reversed.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed both the guilty portion and the judgment of the court of first instance, without examining the defendant's allegation of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal as seen earlier, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence of this case against the defendant is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, each of the choice of punishment (Fraud and choice of imprisonment), Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act;

1. Among concurrent crimes, each of the crimes of this case on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among the crimes of this case is deemed to have been committed by the defendant as the representative director of C&A, who was under financial difficulties, released the seizure by deceiving the victims, ordered the subcontracting work, received the borrowed money from the victims, acquired each property benefits, and did not pay retirement allowances to the workers within 14 days from the date of retirement, and the sum of the acquired money is 40 million won.