The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of five hundred thousand won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed all of the statements of arrears in attached Form 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 [Attachment Table 2, 2, 6763] [Attachment Table 2, 2, 4, 7] [Attachment Table 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 through 11] [Attachment Table 2015 [Attachment Table 8376] Nos. 6, 9, 11, 15, 17, 17, 1, 3, 6, 7 [Attachment Table 2015 [Attachment Table 8473], 5, 6, 9 [Attachment Table 2016 [Attachment Table 2017 [Attachment], 1, 2, 5, 45, 36, 45, 36, 45, 205, 205, 361 through 413, 25, 365, 245, 25, 36, and 4

However, the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal part as to the above dismissal part, and the above part is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

Therefore, the court below's conclusion is followed with respect to dismissal of the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Act on Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, and the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the court below that

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The punishment of the court below against the defendant (two years of imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the sum of the wages and retirement allowances in arrears in the instant case exceeds 60 million won, the number of victimized workers reaches 130 persons, and the crime is not less than less than the quality, and the unpaid pension premium exceeds 200 million won, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is in profoundly against the defendant, that it was additionally agreed upon with the victim 31 and the trial, and that it seems that almost most damages were recovered through deposit and substitute payment payment procedure, apartment auction procedure, etc. with respect to overdue wages of 74 workers who were not agreed in the first instance court, through apartment auction procedure owned by the defendant.