The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted each of the Defendants as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against G as stated in the separate sheet No. 9 No. 1 of the judgment of the lower court, and acquitted the Defendants, and dismissed each of the charges as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act or the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits against the workers stated in the detailed statement of the remaining in arrears other than the aforementioned G

Although the prosecutor filed an appeal and stated the scope of the appeal in the petition of appeal as “the whole judgment,” it is reasonable to deem that the public prosecutor did not file an appeal regarding the dismissal of the above dismissal part of the judgment below, on the grounds that the grounds for appeal and the grounds for appeal submitted by the public prosecutor contain no indication of the grounds for appeal concerning the dismissal of the public prosecution

Therefore, since the above dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is separated and confirmed as it is, it shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the charge of embezzlement part of the embezzlement part of the Defendant, despite the fact that the misunderstanding N without the Defendant’s approval, arbitrarily disposed of the shock and grheat (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) with the lease amounting to KRW 75 million, and according to the victim L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) P employee P, and M’s legal statement at the court below, although N at the time of the disposal of the instant machinery, it was found that N was approved by the Defendant at the time of the disposal of the instant machinery, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Determination

A. The lower court held that the instant machinery was arbitrarily disposed of by N in full view of the testimony of I and Q as stated in its reasoning.