A. It is true that the Defendant did not pay 36,006,027 won in total as wages and retirement pay (hereinafter “wages, etc.”) as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the lower judgment.

However, D received 91,371,060 won from the company at the time of retirement, and there was a situation in which it embezzled the amount equivalent to the 835,281 bill in China with respect to the Chinese corporation. Accordingly, the defendant ordered D to settle the unpaid wages, etc. and the above loans, and to attend the disciplinary committee and explain the embezzlement facts in the Chinese corporation, and dismissed D on May 21, 2012 as D rejected this.

After that, D filed a complaint from the Defendant due to occupational embezzlement, etc., and D filed a complaint on June 9, 2014, on the ground of the unpaid wages, etc.

In light of these circumstances, since there is a ground for dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay wages, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant has intention to pay wages, etc., and there is justifiable reason for the defendant to believe that he does not have the obligation to pay wages, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As wages for workers on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles should be paid in full to workers, the employer cannot set off against the worker's wage claims with loans or claims arising from tort except for the over-paid claims for refund of wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2168, Jul. 13, 1999). Accordingly, even if the defendant has a claim for damages arising from loans or tort against D, as alleged by the defendant, even if he/she has a claim for damages arising from loans or tort, the above claims and wages must be settled.