beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of conviction against Defendant A and the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Each of the Defendants.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, two years of community service order, two years of suspended sentence for ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence for community service order, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.
In the first instance, the prosecutor stated that the Defendants’ charges against the Defendants were 2015 high group 6908, which was 5-6 of the 2015 lower group 6908, and that the Defendants were “to be paid a substitute payment to workers under the pretext of preserving the employees’ consent to the reduction of the number of workers.”
The part of the " " was received from workers' consent to the reduction of wages, etc., so that substitute payments can be made under the pretext of preserving the reduced wages, etc." was gathered with workers.
In the end of this part of the facts charged, the Defendants conspired, thereby making 28 workers receive a substitute payment by false or other unlawful means, and Defendant C received a substitute payment or made 27 workers receive a substitute payment by fraudulent or other unlawful means.
The part “ thereby, the Defendants received substitute payment in collusion with the above M et al. workers by fraud or other improper means.
It is clear that the portion of the date is a clerical error on March 24, 2014, as stated in the former Security Act (amended by Act No. 12528, Sep. 25, 2014).
Article 28 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Act and Articles 30, 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act apply for the permission of modification of a bill of amendment. Since the subject of the adjudication against the defendant was changed by permitting it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
3. Conclusion.