The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant’s mistake was divided, and that the employee H received 4.8 million won agreement amounting to overdue wages from the Defendant and sought the Defendant’s preference.

However, the Defendant has been sentenced 4 times to a fine for the same kind of crime, and has been sentenced 1 times to a punishment; the Defendant’s wages and retirement allowances in arrears with three unpaid workers are the larger amounting to 70 million won in total; equity between the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act established by the Defendant and the crime of this case at the same time, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. However, among the judgment of the court below, the phrase “the pertinent Article of the Act and the choice of punishment against the crime of 1.0” is a clerical error in the corresponding Article of the Criminal Procedure Act on the crime of 1.0, and the phrase “each choice of imprisonment” of the three conducts was added by mistake, and the phrase “1.0 square concurrence: 4.0 square concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act on the crime of 4.0 (the punishment against the violation of each Labor Standards Act on E and F, each of the violation of the Labor Standards Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, each of the crimes is more severe, and thus, it is apparent that each error was omitted by this mistake,” and thus, it is corrected and added ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1).