A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. All of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor in the trial on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor were presented during the hearing of the lower court, and the lower court reflected this in its entirety.

After rendering the judgment of the court below, some workers were to be paid a certain amount out of the overdue wages through the auction procedure, but there is a much amount yet to be paid.

In particular, considering the fact that the total amount of wages and retirement allowances in arrears paid by the defendant exceeds KRW 900 million, however, considering the sentencing factors cited by the court below including the fact that the defendant had been accumulated before he was appointed as the representative director, and the sentencing factors revealed in the proceedings of this case, it is not deemed that the court below’s punishment is too excessive or heavy, and thus, is considerably unfair beyond the reasonable scope of discretion in sentencing.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the arguments of the defendant and the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However) However, in the application of the law stated in the judgment of the court below, the "each Labor Standards Act" in the second sentence among the "the pertinent law on the 1. criminal facts" is clear that the "each former Labor Standards Act" and the "Article 109 (1)" in the third sentence is a clerical error in the "Article 109 (1)". Thus, it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Article 25 (1)