2. On June 201, 2017, under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant was in the first instance trial, and agreed with workers D and E, and the Defendant already received a fine twice due to the same previous conviction, the instant case was reached even if the Defendant was punished by a fine on two occasions due to the same previous convictions. After the delayed payment of the instant wage, the Defendant reached an agreement with the employees after the lapse of about two years, and the Defendant was absent on several occasions without obtaining prior permission on the date of the trial at the original trial and the original trial.

It is difficult to see as an unfavorable circumstance.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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