2. The fact that the Defendant paid wages to part of the victimized workers and agreed with them (the lower court decided to dismiss the public prosecution against that part) and the Defendant appears to have failed to pay wages properly due to the failure to receive subcontract consideration from the original contractor.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant was sentenced to three times a fine for the same crime, the fact that the defendant was a majority of 23 workers who did not pay wages, and the amount unpaid is a large amount of 54,418,285 won, etc. is disadvantageous.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and is not deemed unfair. As such, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the “convenition construction work” in the first sentence of the second part of the judgment below is a clerical error in the “ concrete construction work”, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the