beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of two million won, and by a fine of three million won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A is not obliged to pay wages to workers, since the construction amount was excessively added while the instant construction was being carried out, and the construction was abandoned, and the construction was carried out directly from L, the original contractor, and the construction was completed.
(A) Although the defendant's assertion that the unpaid wage was determined erroneously with respect to K, the prosecutor changed the indictment so that the defendant's argument is consistent with the defendant's argument as seen below.
Defendant
B The Defendant merely introduced the work to Defendant A and did not take part in the work, and there is no obligation to pay wages to workers.
C. Even if the Defendants are found guilty, each sentence of the lower court (a fine of two million won is imposed on Defendant A, Defendant B: a fine of three million won is imposed on the Defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ ex officio, prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content of changing the period of work in the attached Form 40 K from February 29, 2012 to April 8, 2012, and the period of work in the attached Form 40 from February 29, 2012 to April 8, 2012, as “11 day” and the overdue wages to “1,100,000 won,” and the judgment of the lower court was changed to the subject of the judgment upon permission. Thus, the judgment of the lower court was no longer maintained.
However, the judgment of the court below, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the changed facts charged.
B. (1) Taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.