The remainder of the first instance judgment excluding the dismissed part and the second instance judgment shall be reversed.

1. The first instance court, the scope of trial of this court, dismissed the public prosecution against the defendant as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, and found the remainder guilty.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the conviction part of the first judgment, the dismissal of prosecution in the first judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, the dismissal of the above public prosecution is excluded from the scope of this Court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the fraud against the victim C (Article 1 of the first judgment of the court below) (Article 1 of the criminal facts of the defendant), but 30% of the money that the defendant received from the victim should be excluded from the amount of damage. In addition, the defendant did not receive money as a job placement fee, but he personally lends money to the victim who was aware that it is difficult for the defendant to be under the circumstances of the defendant. Even though the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the defendant did not have any intention to defraud the defendant, the court below determined otherwise. 2) The defendant did not demand money for job placement fee and election fund (Article 1 of the criminal facts of the first judgment of the court) for the victim K (Article 1 of the judgment of the court below). The defendant did not demand money for the purpose of job placement fee and election fund. The victim

The lower court determined otherwise even though the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and did not have the intent to defraud the victim.

3) Fraud against the victim Q Q (Article 1 of the lower judgment on the crime of paragraph (3) of the first instance judgment did not state that the victim stated that “the victim would have been able to obtain a successful bid for F’s construction,” and there was no fact that the victim demanded money at the expense of arranging it.

The Defendant had a business entity that is operated by the victim registered as F Cooperative, and on November 2015, the Defendant had the business entity registered as F Cooperative.