(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.24 2018노2950 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.24 2018노2950

근로기준법위반등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing each public prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act of the 2016 highest order 7543 workers C, which was against the Labor Standards Act of the 2017 highest order 2151 workers D, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act of the 2017 highest order 2244 high order 2017 high order 2017 high order 2244 workers E, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and the dismissal portion of the above public prosecution becomes final and conclusive since all the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal portion of the public prosecution. Thus, the scope of the judgment of the lower court is limited to the convicted portion of the lower judgment.

2. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

3. In light of the circumstances and contents of each of the crimes in this case, the facts that the Defendant was found guilty at the lower court, and that the Defendant did not agree with the employees of the crime violating the Labor Standards Act and the Workers’ Retirement Security Act, are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the defendant reflects the crime; (b) the fact that the defendant appears to be somewhat taking into account the circumstances of each of the crimes in this case; (c) there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine for the defendant; and (d) there was no record of punishment for the same crime before the time the crime in this case was committed; (b) the defendant agreed with the victim of the fraud in this case and the victim in this case; (c) the defendant did not want the punishment for the defendant; and (d) the employee I expressed his intent that the defendant would not want the punishment if he goes bankrupt; and (c)

The above circumstances and the defendant's occupation, age, and sex.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노405

-울산지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노2102

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.14 2017노1828

-대구지방법원 2017.11.10 2017노23

-대전지방법원 2016.08.17 2015노1904