The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding E was registered as an employee as the actual manager of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and paid the following wages. The Defendant was the representative director of the instant company in the form of the instant company, and did not have conspired with E.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant deposited the E’s wages into the F’s account in collusion with E for the purpose of evading compulsory execution under the condition that the collection order was served on the instant company. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① On November 4, 2005, the Defendant established the instant company by jointly investing with E, H, and L. In the early two years, the Defendant retired from office and participated in the instant company once a week from around November 2009.

On November 25, 2010, the Defendant was appointed as a director of the instant company. From July 15, 2011 to May 8, 2014, the Defendant was in office as the representative director, and overall control over the company’s affairs (the investigation record 17 to 19, 51, 164 pages). ② D received the seizure and collection order on wage claims owned by the instant company under Seoul Central District Court 201 to 4846, and issued the seizure and collection order on February 9, 201, and the said decision was served on the instant company on February 15, 201, and the Defendant received from the employees of the instant company a report on the delivery of the above seizure and collection order (the investigation record 53,166 pages). ③ The Defendant received from the prosecutor’s office the seizure and collection order under the name of the company and E continuously after the absence of accurate memory or representative director.