A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, alleged on the ground of an express appeal only as to the mistake of facts in the statement and pleading. However, in light of the purport of the allegation, the Defendant made a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

Although the Defendant made best efforts to pay wages to workers, the Defendant was unable to pay wages due to inevitable circumstances, such as the fact that the victims of the instant case, such as E, refuse to produce, leave the company at the same time, and refused to return a computer containing business skills and information, and that the Defendant established a “O,” which is a competitor, and then lent funds to the Defendant, and the Defendant took out the equipment as security for loan claims, and then delivered the product produced by the equipment to the Defendant’s customer. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability should be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where: (a) the employer is not allowed to delay the payment of wages or retirement allowances to workers on the sole ground of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles; (b) however, even if all gender and efforts were made, it is recognized that the employer was unable to prevent the delayed payment of wages or retirement allowances, and thus, the employer was unable to expect more lawful acts or was an inevitable circumstance, such reason constitutes a ground for dismissal of liability for a violation of the duty to pay wages and retirement allowances within the due date under the Labor Standards Act or the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do12753, Feb. 12, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in the instant case, such a ground is a ground for dismissal of liability.