2. In full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant was the first offender, and the clothes processing company, which the Defendant operated, discontinued after the instant crime, and appears to have not been sufficiently equipped with the economic situation of the Defendant, but in full view of the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the instant crime, degree of damage, circumstances after the instant crime, relationship with the victim, and family relationship, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed to be inappropriate and too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

[On the other hand, the defendant agreed to pay monthly wages, including the amount of retirement allowances, to the employees of the same industry, instead of paying the amount of the same industry at the time of concluding the employment contract with the victim. However, according to the statement of statement with the victim prepared by the labor inspector who is a special judicial police officer, the victim seems to have not been paid the retirement allowances by the interim settlement of accounts according to the above agreement, and the agreement not to pay the retirement allowances is null and void in accordance with Articles 15(1) and 34 of the Labor Standards Act and Articles 8(1) and 9 of the former Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (wholly amended by Act No. 10967, Jul. 25, 201). 3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and this part of the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.