A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts is the actual user of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant re-subcontracted to F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) all the electrical construction of the construction of a new urban-type housing complex building (hereinafter “instant construction”) subcontracted from D Co., Ltd., Young-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was subcontracted from D Co., Ltd.’s Integrated Development (hereinafter “Seo Young-gu Comprehensive Development”), and the employees who worked for the instant workers are I who are the representative director of F and their employees, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the violation of the Labor Standards Act (which was committed on May 7, 2012) against the instant workers, and even if the Defendant is liable for the payment of wages to the instant workers, the Defendant is liable for the payment of wages.

Even if the wages in arrears were paid in May 2012, the wages in arrears were paid.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the first instance, the Defendant was investigated as a witness status in the investigative agency, but was later converted into the suspect status and was investigated.

(M) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the prosecutor’s statement to G and J, the prosecutor’s protocol, and the public official’s daily report (electric), the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the instant construction from the Go Young General Construction to re-subcontract it to F as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, and the Defendant took over and directly managed the said construction site from F around May 2012, but did not pay KRW 92,794,295 for the total amount of wages of 29 workers working at the said workplace, such as G, etc. from May to July 2012 to 7, 2012. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D from May 2012, D in this case.