A. In fact, the Defendant, instead of raising the amount of wages compared to the preceding year between the instant workers, who worked as the safety personnel of the International P Park I World swimming pool, paid a total of 63 days work period as a fixed amount without calculating the excess amount, and the allowance for the clean learning of a swimming pool was set at the rate of piece based on the scale of expenditure expenses, such as the amount of meal expenses and water rates after the end of the work period, but did not pay the wages for the workers since it did not meet the payment conditions, such as the maximum amount of water rates imposed.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won a penalty) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of facts, namely, ① G representing the instant workers has been paid 10,000 won per a swimming pool bargaining allowance to the Defendant even in 2013, a previous year. However, only if the amount of wages has been partially increased during the previous year, it is difficult to see that it would be difficult to immediately renounce the settlement of working period or receive the amount of bonuses from the amount of bonuses in the previous year. ② Rather, the head of the Q pool safety personnel team, a swimming pool operated by the Defendant, also stated that there was no speech that the Defendant would give the Defendant the payment of the premium for the actual working period as piece rate, and that there was no special agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the payment of the wages.