All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation on sentencing in light of the fact that there is an area unique to the determination of sentencing, and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) Where the Defendant acknowledges and is in profoundly against each of the instant crimes; (c) the Defendant did not take personal benefits due to the instant occupational breach of trust; (d) the instant violation of the Labor Standards Act was caused by the aggravation of the company’s management situation; and (e) there is no reason to consider the circumstances; and (e) there is no history of punishment exceeding the amount of force and fine imposed due

After the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, the defendant has been further auctioned for apartment and land owned by the defendant, and further damage has been restored.

One of the arguments is that the materials that can be recognized have not been submitted.

On the other hand, however, there is no circumstance that the amount of damage caused by the crime of occupational breach of trust was large and not recovered, and there is no other effort to recover damage. The total amount of unpaid wages is a large amount, and three times of past records of punishment for the crime of occupational violation of the Labor Standards Act are disadvantageous.

In addition to these circumstances, the lower court’s sentence is too excessive in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime.