The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) was presented by the Defendant on the third trial date of the trial at the trial of the competent court, but this is only asserted after the lapse of the period for filing the grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal and the grounds of appeal are not stated therein). It does not constitute legitimate grounds for

Although the Defendant notified D of his reinstatement to his original position in accordance with the order of remedy received from the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, D refused it, and it was merely a failure to pay the amount equivalent to the wages during the period of dismissal to pay the amount determined by the court with the wind to claim excessive amount of damages caused by D.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case even though the defendant did not intentionally fulfill the order of remedy in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. According to the records of this case, the judgment of the court below was rendered on July 3, 2014 by the Jeonju District Court (2013Gohap162, 233 (merged) sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years to two years and six months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which became final and conclusive on October 26, 2017. On August 12, 2016, the Seoul Southern District Court (2015Gohap48, 2016Gohap45 (merged) sentenced to three years of imprisonment due to rape, etc. and became final and conclusive on February 21, 2017. On June 21, 2018, the judgment of the court below which became final and conclusive on April 26, 2019 and each of the above crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act became final and conclusive, taking into account the case where the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive on April 26, 2019.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court.