All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence (a fine of one million won to be suspended and suspended) declared by the lower court is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendants denied the instant crime is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, according to the point of view of the supervising officer that the Defendants’ act of subsidizing the J’s wages constitutes unfair labor practices, the Defendants were unable to engage in the labor union operations of this case and demanded return of the money paid as the wages of the J under the labor union of this case (However, the labor union of this case refuses to return the money on the ground that the payment of the J was not an unfair labor activity but an strike for the labor union). The Defendants did not pay the J’s wages with the intent to lose the independence of the labor union by controlling the labor union operation of this case and participating in the labor union operation of this case. In addition, the Defendants paid the wages of the labor union of this case before the Defendants were left as the president of H, and in accordance with the collective agreement, H was paid the wages of the labor union of this case, and the Defendants continued to receive the wages of the labor union staff for smooth labor relations even after the termination of such agreement on November 201, and the Defendants had the power to be sentenced once a fine of this case.

Of the above circumstances and other conditions of suspension of sentence, the term “where the circumstances before the opening of the sentence” refers to cases where the circumstances that would not lead to the criminal defendant again even if the sentence was not imposed, considering comprehensively the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the degree of reflectivity, are interpreted to mean cases where the defendant is clearly expected not to commit a crime again. In contrast, the phrase “where the circumstances before the opening of the sentence is obvious” is limited to cases where the defendant commits a crime in depth, or it is not interpreted that the suspension of sentence may not be always granted in cases where the defendant denies a criminal offense without confession.