A. misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant agreed not to receive wages because it was a dogmatic attack; (b) the Defendant paid 2020,000 won to K; (c) paid 1,560,000 won to G; and (d) refused to receive payment in the same manner as G did not meet the amount; and (c) although H’s wages are paid by M&A, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case to be erroneous of mistake.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's conviction of this part of the charges is justified in light of such circumstances. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to F's finding of facts. First, the court below's determination of facts: (i) F's employment by the KJ as the Defendant and the Defendant from around December 18, 2010 to work, such as recreation, etc. in the steel tower in the radio base station operated by the Defendant from around December 18, 2010; (ii) at the time, F decided to receive KRW 200,000 from the Defendant as daily wage; (iii) the Defendant agreed to pay wages as KRW 2 million; and (iv) the Defendant asserted that he agreed to pay wages to F and fails to present objective data to support the delayed payment.

Second, according to the health records and records, G, upon introduction by K, receives 130,000 won per day from the steel tower in the radio base station operated by the Defendant from December 29, 2010 to receive 130,000 won per day from the steel tower in the radio base station operated by the Defendant, and (2) K intended to receive money from the Defendant to pay 1.5 million won as the wages to G, but it refused to receive payment due to the lack of the amount of G, and used it as its hospital expenses without returning to the Defendant, and (3) G is the overdue wages between the Defendant and the competent labor office.