Of the lower judgment, the part on each of the remaining crimes except for the crimes referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 2015 group 15 group 1533 group and the lower judgment, and Article 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the amount of damage in fraud (2015, 1533, 2015, 1672, 2015, 2015, 1672) is different, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment for two months (the first instance judgment: crime No. 1533) and eight months (the remainder of the crime except for the crime set forth in subparagraph 1 of Article 1533 of the Highest 2015, group 1533), and the second lower judgment: fine of KRW 4,00,000) are too unreasonable.

2. According to the records, on July 24, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for fraud at the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2013 (hereinafter “previous conviction”), May 22, 2014, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for fraud at the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 30, 2014 (hereinafter “second previous conviction”), and on November 25, 2014, regarding the first crime as indicated in the judgment at the Gwangju District Court, three months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment for the second crime as indicated in the judgment, but the Defendant appealed and appealed for the second crime as indicated in the judgment at the Gwangju District Court on March 11, 2015, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and six months for one year and six months for whom the judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment”).

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the sentence shall be determined after examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to NN among the judgment of the court below of the court below of the second and Article 37 of the Criminal Act constitutes a concurrent crime, and thus, the crime of violation of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to NN is a single concurrent crime after examining whether to simultaneously render the judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and whether to reduce or exempt the punishment.

On account of the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the rest of the judgment of the court below of the second instance.