Of the judgment below, the part concerning the application for compensation of the first instance judgment and the part concerning the dismissal of the public prosecution of the third instance judgment is excluded.

The first instance court dismissed all the applicants’ application for compensation, and the applicants for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and each of the above applications for compensation became final and conclusive immediately. Therefore, each of the above applications for compensation was dismissed within the scope of the trial of this court.

The third court dismissed the prosecution against the defendant as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against AO, AP, Q, AR, AS, AS, ATS, AU, AV, AY, AY, AZ, BA, BB, and B, and convicted the remainder of the charges.

Since only the defendant appealed against the conviction part and the dismissal part of the public prosecution which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated, this part is excluded from the scope of the trial in this Court.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) there is no sufficient ground to judge that six victims are identical to the legal interests of the victim, such as victim BV, etc., but the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by deeming this part of the crime as a single comprehensive crime; and (b) there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment

The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the first instance court: 7 years of imprisonment, the second instance court: 1 year and 3 months of imprisonment): 3 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third judgment against the defendant in the judgment of the court below was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above three cases. Since each crime of the first, second, and third judgment against the defendant in the concurrent relationship with the defendant in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since each crime of the first, second, and third judgment against the defendant in the concurrent relationship with the defendant in Article