beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Scope of the judgment of this court;
A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted each of the facts charged against the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers H, I, J, K, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, and Q, R, S, and T, each of the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Retirement Benefits of Workers, U, V, W, X,Y, Z, AA, and AB, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act for each of the Labor Standards Act for Workers AC, AD, and AB in the instant case No. 2018 and 5, the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers AC, AD, and AE, and the violation of the Workers' Retirement Benefit Security Act for Workers AF, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers AB, Q, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act for Workers AB in the instant case No. 2018 and 6, 2018 and 2018, and the remainder of the Public Prosecution against Workers AG in the instant case.
For this reason, the defendant appealed against the guilty portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal. Therefore, the dismissed portion of the judgment below becomes final and conclusive and only the convicted portion is subject to the judgment of this court.
B. The lower court dismissed all of the applications for compensation order filed by the applicant C, D, E, F, and G (2017 early 340, 341, 344, 345, 346, 351, 354, and 355). Since an applicant for compensation is unable to file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the lower court immediately finalized each of the above applications for compensation order, each of the judgment below’s rejection of each of the applications for compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination: (1) The Defendant is against all of the instant crimes; (2) the Defendant committed embezzlement against the Victim AI Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AI”) in the instant crimes, except for those sentenced to a fine due to a violation of road traffic law (dacting driving); and (2) the Defendant committed embezzlement.