The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the case of violation of the Labor Standards Act by mistake of facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the judgment below which found this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant had calculated the delayed wages at a higher level than the actual wages, as a result of the petitioner's withdrawal or retirement hours or working hours different from the actual hours.

B. The Defendant alleged that he was guilty of initial facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, mental or physical disorder, and unfair sentencing, and stated on the date of the fourth trial of the trial of the first instance court that “the remaining grounds for appeal except for the part related to the calculation of the amount of wages are withdrawn.” However, it is unclear whether the Defendant’s above assertion was withdrawn by the grounds for unfair appeal of sentencing. However, the purport of maintaining the grounds for appeal related to the calculation of the amount of wages lies in mind, and thus, the grounds for an unfair appeal of sentencing are deemed to have been maintained.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances known by the record as to the assertion of mistake of fact, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized, and there is an error of mistake of fact as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) The Defendant did not assert that the investigation agency made a mistake in the calculation of overdue wages claimed by the truth-finding, and the lower court also recognized all the facts charged of the instant case, including this part of the facts charged.

2) The Defendant asserted that, even if only the commuting register and the labor contract were to be made in the past in the past in the past in the past in the past in the past in the past in the past in the past, it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion on this part by itself, as well as whether the Defendant, the business owner, has been deprived of the genuine’s wages specifically, and therefore, it is true.