The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: In the case of D operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant company”), the lower court determined that the labor practice of the instant company did not take effect on the ground that the labor practice did not meet all the criteria under each subparagraph of Article 61 of the Labor Standards Act in relation to the promotion of the use of annual paid leave, while recognizing that the labor practice of the instant company was established more favorable to workers than that set forth in Article 60(1) of the Labor Standards Act with respect to the conditions for granting annual paid leave.

However, in relation to the conditions of granting annual paid leave, if the company follows labor practices more favorable to workers than those set forth in Article 60(1) of the Labor Standards Act, it should follow the labor practices of the company of this case in relation to the promotion of the use of annual paid leave.

The judgment of the court below on the premise different from this is erroneous in the misapprehension of the principle of preferential application of favorable conditions, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence sentenced by the lower court (3 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine each of the above grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment.

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment by this court on June 14, 2018 due to a violation of the Labor Standards Act, etc., and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 25, 2018. As such, the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act, etc., for which judgment became final and conclusive, and the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act, etc., of violation of the Labor Standards Act constitutes concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, shall be determined after considering the equity and the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence. Thus, the lower court’

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is subject to the judgment of this court, so this is below.