The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution on the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the Defendant on the violation of the Labor Standards Act.

In light of the purport that only the defendant appealed against this, and the reason for appeal is that the defendant's appeal is heavier than that of the judgment of the court below. Furthermore, since the defendant's appeal for the defendant is a claim for a judgment benefited by correcting unfavorable trials against him/her, the defendant cannot have the right to appeal unless he/she disadvantage himself/herself, and the defendant, upon the dismissal of public prosecution, is out of the risk of conviction due to his/her return to the absence of the institution of public prosecution, and thus, the judgment cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do1675, Nov. 8, 198). In light of the fact that the part of the judgment of the court below dismissing public prosecution

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015