The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Fine 2,500.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B 1) The facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant denial part”) concerning the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court of first instance

(1) In the case of a corporation, the term “stock company” is omitted and the remainder is solely referred to as “stock company.”

) The construction of the retaining wall, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”)

In relation to Defendant B’s assistance to the instant construction, and it is not the employer’s position to pay wages to the employees of the instant construction, but all of the denying parts of the instant construction are erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant B guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant B guilty of the denied parts of the instant construction, and each of the punishments (the first instance court’s judgment: the fine of one million won, and the fine of three million won) that the court of second instance sentenced Defendant B,

B. Defendant A’s punishment (2 million won of fine) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio (Defendant B) by the judgment of the court below rendered each of the first and second judgments, and Defendant B filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. Meanwhile, the crimes of the first and second judgment against Defendant B are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and must be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a limited term of punishment, under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the first and second judgment against Defendant B cannot be exempt from all reversal.

However, even if there exists the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the denial part of this case is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in paragraph 3 below.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The employer of the denied part of this case shall be deceased or retired by the employee.