A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is not an employee who provides the defendant with labor.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (1.5 million won) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and determined that E constitutes a worker who provided labor to the defendant in a subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages by stipulating the judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion in detail.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the reasoning of the judgment below closely, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not sufficient to reverse the above judgment even if the witness I’s legal statement was neglected.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the conditions of the pleadings and records of the instant case including favorable circumstances, unfavorable circumstances (amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances) presented by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age character and character intelligence environment, motive means of crime, result of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentencing is appropriate, and the Defendant’s above assertion is also groundless.

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.