logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.05.27 2016노397
직업안정법위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, or Defendant B’s defense counsel at the hearing held on April 29, 2015, based on the summary of the pleadings, the main grounds for appeal, and the imposition of the surcharge by the lower court was unfair, and the calculation of the surcharge by the lower court was unfair. As such, in relation to the surcharge, it shall be deemed that there was a mistake of facts or a misapprehension of

In this case, Defendant B’s police statement (i.e., average of KRW 10-150,000 per month, average of KRW 300,000 per month) (i.e., average of KRW 10-150,000 per day from November 4, 2012 to February 4, 2015) is not based on objective data such as books, but rather on a statement by the prosecutor’s office (i.e., average of KRW 10-150,00 per month), and (ii) the statement by the prosecutor’s office (i.e., the amount of oil value, etc., the amount of KRW 10,00 per day, the amount of KRW 30,00 per month, and the amount of additional collection) is excessively different.

Therefore, in the case of Defendant B, if the criminal proceeds are not specified or it is difficult to specify, it can not be collected as additional collection.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of additional collection, one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, arguing that Defendant C’s primary reason for appeal, as the main reason for appeal, is to dispute the amount of the surcharge ordered by the lower court, while making an unfair sentencing. As such, in relation to the surcharge, Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles

① Defendant C’s commencement of the operation of “A” was not from around April 2012, but from around August 2012, and Defendant C’s prosecution.

arrow