A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles E provided labor only for seven days from July 10, 2013 to August 10, 2013, and provided labor in good faith for seven days, and caused enormous damages to the Defendant. The Defendant did not pay wages as there is a dispute over the existence and scope of the duty to pay wages between E and E due to his unfaithful work, and the Defendant did not have a criminal intent in violation of the Labor Standards Act on the ground that there is considerable reason for the failure to pay wages. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of related legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant worked at the Defendant’s workplace from July 10, 2013 to August 10, 2013 and did not pay KRW 2 million as of July 7, 2013 to the Defendant’s retired workers E within 14 days from the date of the occurrence of the cause for payment without an agreement between the parties on the extension of the due date for payment. 2) Meanwhile, if there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that the employer has a reasonable ground for failing to pay wages, etc., and it is difficult to find that the employer had the intent to commit a violation of Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is any ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. should be determined in light of all the circumstances at the time of the dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14693 Decided October 27, 2011, etc.).