All judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (i.e., violation of the Labor Standards Act) the Defendant did not operate a restaurant, but rather, the actual operator of the above restaurant received monthly salary of KRW 2.5 million and work in a kitchen room. The Defendant entered into a monthly parking contract with the victim, not a monthly parking contract with the victim, but the Defendant entered into a one-time parking contract with the victim, and the victim parked the victim's vehicle for about 15 days in accordance with the contract until the termination of the above contract and carried out the contract, thereby recognizing the criminal intent of deceptiveation.

B. Each punishment (No. 1: fine of 700,000 won, and fine of 300,000 won: 2: 300,000 won) for the first deliberation on the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on the violation of the Labor Standards Act, as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant is sufficient to regard the Defendant as the employer of the victimized employee of the “G”, which is the instant restaurant. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the Doll fraud (in particular, the victim D's investigative agency and the first instance court's statement), the defendant, despite the absence of the authority to conclude a monthly parking contract as stated in this part of the facts charged, is sufficiently recognized that the defendant, as if he had such authority, deceiving the victim D to receive 180,000 won in cash from the victim and obtained the money from the victim.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit (this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, so long as the money was received by deception, the crime of fraud was established, and a part of the parking service

B. We look at ex officio prior to the judgment of the lower court as to the illegality of ex officio sentencing.

This Court.