2. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant was unable to pay the wages and retirement allowances, the fact that the Labor Welfare Corporation paid a substitute payment to the victimized workers and the remaining amount of unpaid wages is relatively small, and that the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the same criminal record or fine is favorable.

On the other hand, it is unfavorable that the period in which wages have not been paid has reached three months, and the amount has not been much, and it seems that the damaged workers suffered considerable economic difficulties.

In full view of the factors and sentences of the sentencing in this Court, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, when determining the sentencing.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the circumstances and results of the instant crime were to be considered after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be adequate and too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the “Labor Standards Act” in the column of the relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts in the application of the statutes of the lower judgment shall be corrected to the “former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 15108, Nov. 28, 2017 and enforced May 29, 2018).”