2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant has already been sentenced to a fine twice due to the same kind of crime, the total amount of wages that the Defendant did not pay to his/her employees is not at least KRW 61,571,396, and the employees want to punish the Defendant.

However, there are favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized each of the crimes in this case and is against the defendant, the fact that the defendant has no record of crime exceeding the fine, and the defendant's management has become difficult, making it difficult to take account of the circumstances.

The court below appears to have sentenced the sentence of the court below in light of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is determined to be appropriate, and the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be unfair as it is excessively uneasible, beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

We do not accept the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.

3. As the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court’s judgment’s application of the Labor Standards Act as “the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017).”