Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact, the Defendant was unable to pay wages due to interference with D Construction Co., Ltd., business partners, etc.’ performance of construction and receipt of payment, and there is a justifiable reason for the payment of wages.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

"A crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment has become final and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive" shall constitute concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity in cases where a crime among concurrent crimes has become final and conclusive under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has not become final and conclusive

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on June 24, 2016 for a violation of the Labor Standards Act in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on June 24, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 25, 2016.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not sentence punishment for the instant crime in consideration of equity and the case of a violation of the Labor Standards Act, which became final and conclusive, could no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts during the grounds of appeal, there was a reasonable ground for the Defendant to pay wages to the workers solely on the evidence submitted by the Defendant.

It is difficult to see that according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he did not pay wages to workers without good cause. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.