The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where there is no concern about substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of the defendant's right of defense, the court recognized facts different from the facts charged without following changes in indictment procedures.

Even if it does not violate the principle of disadvantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1667, Jun. 15, 2006). The lower court consistently denied the fact that a labor company E, who participated in the procedure of filing an application for substitute payment as if D (hereinafter referred to as “D”)’s employees were directly employed by D, engaged in the instant crime, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it, thereby soliciting the instant crime.

It is difficult to conclude it.

On the other hand, the part of the criminal facts, “Defendant conspiredd to commit the crime E and E,” was deleted.

However, the lower court: (a) conspiredd the Defendant to commit the instant violation of the Guarantee of Wage Claim Security Act and attempted fraud; and (b) essentially contributed to the crime.

In view of the facts charged in the instant case, all of the charges were convicted.

For this reason, the defendant reported that labor costs in the payment of the subcontract price can be resolved through the application for substitute payment after D's default, and that D'F also reported that D's workers were identified as D's workers, and that E ordered the management department's employees to take measures that facilitate the processing of the contract, such as reporting employment insurance.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders.

B. A. The lower court is to the same extent as the facts charged are based on the factual basis.