beta
Text
The judgment below
Of the attached crimes list 4, the acquitted part on the violation of the Labor Standards Act during the 4th period.
Reasons
The court below ruled that among the facts charged against Defendant A, the court below dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act in the crime list Nos. 9 through 12, 14 through 17, 19 through 26, 28 through 30 of the attached Table No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, among the facts charged against Defendant B, as to the violation of the above labor Standards Act in the crime list Nos. 9 through 30 of the crimes committed against Defendant B.
In addition, the court below convicted the Defendants on the violation of each of the labor standard laws in the above crime inundation Nos. 1 through 8, and found the Defendants not guilty on the violation of each of the labor standard laws in the annexed crimes No. 2 of the judgment below.
Accordingly, the Defendants filed each appeal only against the conviction and innocence. As such, the dismissed portion of each of the above indictment is separately determined upon the expiration of the appeal period, and is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) even if the wages paid to the Defendants to the re-employed workers 1 through 8 (hereinafter “G team”) in the table of crime Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter “G team”), or remain, the wages are paid in full or not paid, the amount of KRW 7,560,000,000 recognized by the lower court, rather than KRW 7,560,000. The lower court’s assertion of the facts as follows: (b) calculated the unpaid wages of the G team by dividing them into months other than the total number of working days; and (c) calculated the daily wages for the G team from April 2016 to 10,000,000 won for the concrete team; and (c) in this case, the total amount of wages of the G team was already paid in total of KRW 2,713,00,000,0000, not unpaid.
The sentence of the lower court against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for April, and Defendant B: 3 million won) is too unreasonable.
The Prosecutor G agreed to receive payment from Defendant A by misunderstanding the legal principles of the prosecutor.