The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (a one year of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment, and a community service order of 80 hours) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) The lower court’s judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, in light of the following: (a) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning for sentencing; (b) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant, including that the Defendant led to confession and reflects against a criminal act; and (c) the wages and retirement allowances in arrears in excess of a total of KRW 25 million, and (d) the Defendant repeated the same crime even before the instant case, despite the history of criminal punishment against the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, even if there was a history of criminal punishment as to the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. In so doing, the lower court’s judgment is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (d) there is no particular change

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.