2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) recognition of the offense; (b) recognition of the offense; (c) the fact that there is no criminal history except punishment for a fine twice due to drinking driving; and (d) recovery of workers’ damages through substitute payments, etc.

However, in full view of the fact that the original judgment appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the favorable circumstances as above, there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the pronouncement of the original judgment, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, etc., it is difficult to see that the original judgment’s punishment is too unreasonable because

Therefore, we do not accept the above argument of the defendant's above sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That in the crime of the lower judgment, “the payment of money and valuables must be made” and “Article 1096(1) of the Labor Standards Act” in the application of the statutes are each clerical error under Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Thus, it is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Therefore, ex officio rectification is to be made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act).