The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B (excluding the part on compensation order and dismissal of prosecution) shall be reversed.

Defendant

B.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing public prosecution against Defendant B’s violation of the respective Labor Standards Act and violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, since the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal part of the judgment below and this part is separated and confirmed, it shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles ) Defendant A is merely a conclusion of a lease agreement with Defendant B with the victim F with the belief that the establishment of a pharmacy is possible on the hospital affiliated building (hereinafter “instant building”).

Therefore, Defendant A did not have obtained money by deceiving the victim F in collusion with Defendant B.

B) Defendant A received a total of KRW 150 million from the Victim F to April 5, 2016 from February 26, 2016 to April 5, 2016, and there was no remittance of KRW 50 million as the lease deposit on February 24, 2016. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of Defendant B (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

C. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1 of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges by deceiving the victims D and deceiving them of KRW 100 million, even though the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to repay the amount, was found not guilty of this part of the charges. 2) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of unfair sentencing (the defendants) is erroneous and unfair sentencing (the sentence against the Defendants) is too uneasible and unfair

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine.