The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one and half years.

1. The first instance court’s judgment on the scope of trial in this Court dismissed each of the charges as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to C and the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to D, the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to D and the violation of the Labor Standards Act as to E among the charges in the case of the 2012 Highest 695 Highest 697, and convicted the remainder

Of the facts charged in the 2012 Highest 5975 case, with respect to the part concerning AA and AB [the part concerning crime sight table (2), No. 2, and 3] of the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor revoked the public prosecution on the fifth public trial of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance decided to dismiss the public prosecution.

However, since the defendant filed an appeal only against the conviction except the above dismissed part among the judgment of the court of first instance, the dismissed part was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the conviction part of the first judgment and the second and third judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentences of the judgment of the court below (the first judgment: imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months: imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months: imprisonment of 2 months and 3 months: imprisonment of 10 months) are too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below of the second instance by the prosecutor (two months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above cases. Each of the above offenses in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance on conviction and the judgment of the court of appeal No. 2 and No. 3 on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal.