2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime and reflected, and that the said employee appears to have received unpaid wages as substitute payment, etc.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who ordinarily employs 50 workers at all times, and operates the business of manufacturing clothing, and is exempted from the obligation to pay wages to workers D and E, which are naturally to be borne by the defendant at the workplace. Since wages are core elements guaranteeing the basic life of workers, it is stipulated that the payment of wages should be punished separately under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes unlike the non-performance of ordinary obligation. Considering the above, the defendant's liability for the crime is not less severe, the fact that the defendant's non-paid wages are paid on behalf of the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant directly pays the wages or has paid the indemnity to the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation, even if part of the wages the worker did not reach an agreement with the above workers until the trial, and that the defendant has been sentenced once to a fine for the same kind of crime, etc.,

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other various circumstances, which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the Defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair since the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.