2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The offense of violating an obligation to pay wages or retirement allowances within the payment period, based on the determination of the allegation on the grounds for denial of liability, is exempt only when an employer has made the best efforts to pay the wages or retirement allowances, but inevitable circumstances that were unable to be paid within the payment period due to financial difficulties, etc. are recognized in light of the social norms

Therefore, the employer cannot be held liable solely with the fact that it was impossible for the employer to pay wages or retirement allowances under pressure due to business depression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do649, Nov. 26, 2002). In addition, when determining whether there was an inevitable circumstance in which the employer was unable to pay wages or retirement allowances within the fixed period, it may be a specific disciplinary statement as to whether the measures to be objectively acceptable from the standpoint of the retired worker, etc. were taken, such as making maximum efforts to liquidate wages or retirement allowances early in order to promote the living stability of the retired worker, etc., or making a clear presentation of the future repayment plan and holding consultation with the worker in good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9230, Feb. 9, 2006). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, the lower court made the Defendant’s best efforts to pay the wages or retirement allowances to the employee.

It is difficult to view that it reached the degree of recognition.

The defendant was unable to receive a contract for the supply of radar storage expenses from an investigative agency.