2. If there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Although the total amount of wages and retirement allowances in arrears with 17 employees reaches KRW 7,00,000, the Defendant appears to have an attitude against himself/herself, and the Defendant appears to have an attitude against himself/herself. After committing the instant crime, he/she transferred the management right including the fact that he/she would succeed to the obligation to pay unpaid wages to AE and AD after committing the instant crime, and there is no history of criminal punishment against the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there are no new changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and the theory of changes, such as the defendant's age, occupation, background of crime, family relationship, health status, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below shall not be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too uneasible.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.