A. Fact-finding: The Defendants did not commit a crime as stated in the facts charged.

Specific reasons are as follows.

(1) The part of the violation of the Labor Standards Act as stated in the lower judgment against Defendant A: M is not an employee of Defendant A, but an employee, and thus, there is no obligation to pay M wages.

(2) The part of fraud in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants: M only obtained a loan from the intention of M to use it as a restaurant operating expenses in the course of operating a restaurant as a restaurant with Defendant A.

(3) The part concerning fraud against Defendant A: (i) there was no 4.6 million won as stated in Section 2-A (a) of the judgment of the court below, and (ii) No. 2-B of the judgment of the court below.

The loan amount of KRW 4 million as stated in paragraph (1) was paid in the amount of KRW 5 million and used as operating expenses of a restaurant operated in M and Dong with M. iii) Section 2(c)(1) of the judgment of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the 3 million won as stated in paragraph (2)(c) of the judgment of the court below is used as operating expenses of the restaurant.

② The KRW 10 million as described in the paragraph was immediately returned to M.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s punishment ( ① one year of imprisonment, ② Defendant B’s imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that there was a mistake of facts in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and convicted all the Defendants of the facts charged.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the evidence additionally adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. Examining the instant judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing and the reasons for sentencing on the judgment of the court below, compared with the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.