The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, violation of the Labor Standards Act concerning Workers D.

1. The lower court sentenced the Defendant to a conviction on the violation of the Labor Standards Act concerning Workers D, among the facts charged against the Defendant, and dismissed all the remainder of the prosecution. The only Defendant appealed on the guilty part among the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing and unfair sentencing. As such, the part of the lower court’s dismissal of the indictment that was not appealed by the Prosecutor was separately finalized

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles submitted to the court below for withdrawal of a petition stating that workers D did not want the defendant's punishment. Since the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid wages is a crime of non-compliance with the victim's explicit intent, a public prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act regarding the above workers should be dismissed. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

3. Of the facts charged in this case’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the charge of violation of the Labor Standards Act with respect to workers D is an offense falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 109(2) of the same Act.

In that sense, the record reveals that the defendant submitted a written opinion on September 17, 2019, which was prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, and submitted the written withdrawal of the petition to the effect that "the defendant does not want to punish the defendant" prepared by the worker D is not accompanied by D's identification card, but the written withdrawal of the petition is not accompanied by D's identification card. However, the written confirmation of the failure to punish the defendant submitted after