The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The court below dismissed the prosecution against B, C, D, E, and F (the crime sight Nos. 4, 9, 18, 37, 45 in the original judgment) of the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and convicted the remainder of the charges.

Since the prosecutor appealed only for the remainder other than each dismissed part, each dismissed part was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining charges except each dismissed part of the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of 4 million won and a fine of 15 million won) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the case of 2017DaMa3605, only the Defendant requested a formal trial against a summary order, the case for which only the Defendant requested a formal trial before the enforcement of the amended provisions of Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the Defendant cannot be sentenced to a penalty heavier than that of a summary order (five million won of a fine) in accordance with the previous provisions.

In the case of 2018 Godan515, there was a dispute between minor shareholders and H due to the embezzlement of large amount of company funds and the breach of trust at the time of each crime. There was a circumstance to consider the circumstances leading to the crime committed in the course of repeating the mutual appointment and dismissal of the representative director by the Defendant and H.

around that time, a fine of KRW 10 million was finally imposed for the crime of forging private documents committed by the defendant for the same reason.

In the case of 2018 Highest 2694, the defendant was in office as a joint representative director of G Co., Ltd., but his tenure of office is not long.

The business part of the above company's hotel and the part of the casino business are operated separately, and the defendant is running the casino business.