The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and for a defendant B, for two years, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the number of employees and executives’ wages, adjustment of payment of overtime allowances, introduction of retirement age system for executives and employees, annual compulsory exhaustion, etc. In order to pay employees’ unpaid wages, Defendant A attempted to carry out high-level rescue measures, such as the sale of company through M&A (M&A) and the sale of company houses through M&A, etc., and Defendant A was unable to pay for the unpaid wages at the representative director’s office. As such, there are extenuating circumstances, there exists a ground for exclusion from liability.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing (the Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the Defendant B’s imprisonment for three years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s violation of the duty to pay wages, etc. under the Labor Standards Act is exempted only when an employer has made the best efforts to pay the wages, etc., but the inevitable circumstance, which was unable to pay within the due date due to financial difficulties, etc. due to financial standing, etc., is recognized in light of social norms. The mere fact that the employer was unable to pay the said wages

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do649 Decided November 26, 2002). In determining whether there was an inevitable circumstance in which an employer could not pay wages or retirement allowances within the prescribed period, the determination can be made by specifically stipulating the repayment plan to the maximum extent possible in order to early liquidate the wages or retirement allowances in order to promote the stability of the livelihood of retired workers, etc., or suggesting the future repayment plan in good faith and holding consultation with the employee, and whether the measures that can be objectively assessed as being reasonable from the standpoint of the retired worker, etc. were taken can also be a concrete requisition.

Supreme Court Decision 2006.2.9