Violation of the Labor Standards Act in relation to Q from among the guilty part against Defendant A and the acquitted part of the lower judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) 1) The Defendants’ occupational embezzlement (2016 Gohap 617 Ga), and the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement (misunderstanding of legal principles) relating to capital [Article 2016 Gohap 617 Ga 1) of the lower judgment] The Defendants obtained a loan of KRW 400 million from the bank with the intent of the most payment, and changed the name of U.S. Co., Ltd. (V. to U stock company on May 15, 2014, and changed from V to u stock company on September 19, 2016.

In the case of the most recent payment, U's capital does not change actually, but only the most recent payment under the Commercial Act is established. The most recent payment under the Commercial Act is only the most recent payment under the Commercial Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles in recognizing the crime of occupational embezzlement without recognizing it as the most serious crime of payment under the Commercial Act.

B) The point of occupational embezzlement related to benefits (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) / [the part on the charge of the lower judgment 2016 Gohap 617 Ga 1-2] ① The money paid to X and Y as salary was properly paid under a contract between shareholders (hereinafter “instant contract”) between the Defendants, which did not cause losses to U, and X and Y was nominal directors and auditors.

Even if they are allowed to claim compensation, there is no intention of illegal acquisition to the Defendants.

② Defendant A was appointed as U’s representative director on July 2, 2014, and thus, Defendant A was not involved in the payment of benefits that occurred before, and thereafter, Defendant A did not participate in the payment of benefits.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) Defendant A’s fraud.