A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, who employed juveniles, was unaware of the youth, was obligated to verify the age of the youth.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case after having finished the direct examination of evidence, such as the process of examining the witness with respect to F and E, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006).

It is not clearly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the judgment.

Comprehensively taking account of other evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in each of the above testimony, the defendant may be recognized as having employed juvenile F and E as a contact loan without confirming their age without confirming their age, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal by the defendant is groundless, and thus, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.