The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, even though there was a legitimate reason for the unpaid pension premium, since the Defendant failed to pay the pension premium due to an insolvent financial situation, etc. due to the lack of management.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of community service, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, justifiable grounds under Article 128(2)2 of the National Pension Act include not only natural disasters, fire, damage from war, or other disasters, or theft, but also the reasons why it is practically difficult to pay pension premiums due to the economic reasons of the person without the payment of pension premiums, such as the disease of the person without the payment of pension premiums, the bankruptcy of the person without the payment, the commencement of auction on the property without the payment, etc.

On the other hand, when determining the existence of justifiable grounds, the determination shall be made on an individual basis by taking into account the details of the failure to pay pension premiums, the amount of unpaid pension premiums, and the period thereof, as well as the specific matters, in full view of the legislative intent of the above penal provision. However, the fact that the failure to pay pension premiums satisfies the requirements of the above penal provision, namely, there is no justifiable reason for the failure to pay pension premiums (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6445, Jun. 12, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant has a justifiable reason for

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

A. The Defendant’s limited liability company C (hereinafter “C”) established on September 18, 2008, and the Defendant or C was the Defendant from November 2010 to October 2017, which was the period of the instant crime.