The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below rejected Defendant’s assertion to the effect that exemption can not be allowed unless it is not recovered due to a sudden default by the main trading office, and that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. The offense of violation of the duty to pay wages and retirement allowances, etc. under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act is exempted only when an employer has made the best efforts to pay the wages and retirement allowances, but an inevitable circumstance that was unable to pay within the due date due to financial difficulties caused by business depression, etc. is acknowledged in light of social norms. The employer cannot be exempted from the liability solely on the basis that the employer was unable to pay the wages and retirement allowances under the pressure of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do649 Decided November 26, 2002, etc.). In determining whether there was an inevitable circumstance in which an employer could not pay wages or retirement allowances within the prescribed period, it is specific that measures that can be objectively assessed as being reasonable from the standpoint of retired workers, etc. were taken, such as making maximum efforts to liquidate wages, retirement allowances, etc. early in order to promote the stability of the livelihood of retired workers, etc., or making a clear presentation of the future repayment plan and holding consultation with employees in good faith.