The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (4 million won in penalty) that the court below rendered by the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant had the history of having been punished several times for the same crime, and did not completely recover the damage incurred to the wages in arrears.

However, there is little difference in the amount of unpaid wages, and there are some circumstances that can be considered for the defendant's delayed payment of wages.

The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already considered in the sentencing process of the court below, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party deliberation, the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion or to be unfair because it is too low.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.