beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received more than KRW 150,00 from the former workplace E, and the Defendant agreed to receive remuneration and other additional allowances received from the previous workplace equally with D and entered into Category C operated by D, under the agreement that they would be treated equally with the nationals.
However, unlike the above agreement, since the defendant paid only less transportation expenses than the same worker, unlike the above agreement, the defendant was accused of the violation of the Labor Standards Act.
Therefore, even though the defendant did not file a false accusation, it should not be deemed that the crime of false accusation is not established, the court below erred in misconception of facts which found him guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.
2. Determination
A. According to each evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.
1) From April 7, 2008 to December 12 of the same year, the Defendant was serving as a general employee in D, and retired from D’s office around December of the same year. (2) On March 21, 2011, the Defendant filed a complaint against D on the ground that the Defendant was unable to receive transportation expenses equivalent to the instant case during the said C’s work period, against the violation of the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “the first complaint”), with respect to the instant first complaint case, the Defendant was investigated by D’s labor office on April 18, 201, and then withdrawn the first complaint on the same day after receiving the said amount.
3) On August 30, 201, the Defendant filed a second accusation against D on the ground that the Defendant did not receive monthly allowance and traffic expenses during the said C’s work period at the Goyang Branch Office of the Government’s High Prosecutors’ Office (hereinafter “the second accusation of this case”) and filed a second accusation against D against the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “the second accusation”).
The defendant is repeated in the course of investigating the second accusation case.