beta
Text
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of one year and six months and fine of 5,000,000 won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants (1) misunderstandings in the calculation of the additional collection amount (Defendant A, B, and C) (the average customer per day of the instant business establishment is 4-5, and the remainder of 50,000 won, excluding the money paid to female employees, are merely 3,00,000 won per month from 2,00,000 won to 3,00,000 won.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by deeming that the Defendants received a total of KRW 124,80,000 for 322 days, by reporting eight average customers per day of the instant business establishment.
(2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (defendant A: imprisonment for 10 months, 2 years of probation, 5,000,000 won of fine: imprisonment for August, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 5,000 won of fine, etc., Defendant C: imprisonment for 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, etc., Defendant D: fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant E: fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant F: fine of 7,00,000 won, etc.) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence of the lower judgment against the Defendant A and B of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. According to the records on the assertion that the amount of additional collection was wrong (Defendant A, B, and C), the fact that the defendant A was under investigation by the police after he/she was under investigation by the police from November 3, 2011 to May 30, 2012 that two female employees stated that he/she would receive an average of four customers a day (one right 162 pages of the evidence records). The fact that the defendant A was under investigation by the police after he/she was under investigation by the police from June 201 to September 20, 2012 (hereinafter “second control”), but the fact that the defendant A was under investigation by the police after he/she was under investigation by the police during the period from June 201 to September 20, 2012 (hereinafter “second control”), the defendant A stated that he/she had a number of customers at least 78 on the average number of customers, among the evidence records No. 21 to 21, the average number of customers employees at the time of this case No. 1, 31, 21, and 3.