A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We also examine the argument of the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

The fact that wages in arrears, etc. paid by the defendant for 38 workers are up to 211,597,400 won in total, and that it appears that many workers suffered considerable monetary and mental pain by avoiding contact among workers and failing to actively respond to the demand for payment of overdue wages, etc. after the commencement of the demand for payment of overdue wages, etc. by the workers is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, against his mistake, the company's management difficulties, and the delay in payment of wages, etc. to workers seems to have occurred due to the difficulties in managing the company, and the court below seems to have made considerable efforts for recovery of damage, such as the payment of overdue wages, etc. to 43 workers, and the fact that the payment of substitute payments, etc. seems to have been restored, are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship to victims, the consequences of the crime, and the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the arguments and records, it is not deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.