A. As to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against G in the case of 2013 high-level 1655 and the case of 2013 high-level 1656, the lower court dismissed the prosecution and dismissed the prosecution as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act against B and C, and the Act on Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

However, as to the conviction portion of the court below, only the defendant appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing, while the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal portion of the public prosecution, so the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction portion of the court below.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the penalty (4 million won of a fine) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unfasible.

2. Although there are some favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant’s mistake is against the Defendant and it appears to have been inevitably caused to the instant crime due to the poor management of overseas construction business, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances, such as the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, occupation, and family relationship, and the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same offense for the last five years, and the amount of wages, bonuses, and retirement allowances unpaid due to the instant crime was relatively large, but the Defendant did not recover the damage to G, etc. or have not been used.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.