A. Inasmuch as misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles damaged the reputation of the defendant and interfere with the work of the F operated separately by the defendant, the defendant was dismissed in D due to the act of causing damage to the defendant and the Association, the defendant is not obligated to pay wages to E, and it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below held that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the defendant's assertion and its determination are not sufficient to deem that E was a tort as alleged by the defendant, and that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone was insufficient to deem that E was a tort as alleged by the defendant, and even if the damage claim caused by tort against the defendant was established as to E, it cannot be viewed as a justifiable act because it is difficult to recognize reasonableness in light of its purpose and method.

Since wages to workers shall be paid in full directly to workers, it is not set off against workers’ wage claims with loans or claims arising out of tort except for over-paid claims for the refund of wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2168, Jul. 13, 199). Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified. Contrary to the allegations by the defendant, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on legitimate acts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.