The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Three workers (D, I, and G) who had not paid wages, etc. by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have caused damages to the defendant by lowering the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc. while working in C Coina operated by the defendant (hereinafter “the instant workplace”). They do not work in the instant workplace for the purpose of wage, but have worked in the instant workplace for the purpose of preventing the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., such as occupational embezzlement. Thus, in light of the purpose of the Labor Standards Act, they are not workers entitled to receive wages, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) If there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., the employer shall be deemed to have a reasonable ground for not paying the wages, etc. so it is difficult to recognize that the employer had an intention to commit a crime of violating Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the reasons for refusal of payment by the employer, the grounds for such refusal, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, all the matters such as the purpose of the business, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1539, Jun. 28, 2007). In addition, since wages to workers are directly paid to workers, the employer is not set off against the employee's wage claims by means of loans or claims arising from tort except for the over-paid obligation to pay wages (see