beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The court below's scope of trial in this case dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act against D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K among the facts charged in this case, and convicted all the remainder of the facts charged. Since the defendant appealed on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the dismissal of prosecution against which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing became final, the court below's scope of trial in this case is limited to the part which the court below
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) As to the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant’s social welfare foundation L (hereinafter “L”).
) The representative is only the NO operated by L to the victims as shown in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as “NOB”).
2) The victims who intend to move into the country did not deceiving the victims to “to return the deposit after one month from the date of withdrawal if the contract is terminated” (this part is only the content of the contract).
The victims can not be said to have been accused because they directly confirmed the status of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of the State of Korea.
In addition, the victims paid net income from October 2006 to April 2009, when they entered into a contract for occupancy, and the unclaimed security deposit from April 2006 to April 2009 was limited to KRW 55 million, and the appraised value of L exceeded KRW 15.8 billion as of August 6, 2010. The Defendant attempted to sell L's fundamental property in order to return the victims' security deposit, but failed to return the deposit by the decision of non-permission to dispose of basic property of Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the competent authority. In light of this, when the victims entered into a contract for occupancy from October 2006 to January 2, 2009, the Defendant or the Defendant were at the time of entering into the contract for occupancy.