All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (the second judgment) agreed with the victim to deduct the damage claim against the victim and the claim for the amount of compensation against the victim from the wage, and the income tax, employment insurance premium, national health insurance premium, national pension insurance premium that the victim has to pay should also be deducted from the wage.

2) Even though the lower court acquitted G and H of the charge that the Defendant stolen the tools and legs and interfered with repair of defects, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court No. 2 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The main text of Article 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act, as to whether a set-off agreement on wages is valid, must be paid directly to workers in currency in full.

The purport of the so-called principle of full-time payment of wages is to protect workers by prohibiting an employer from unilaterally deducting wages, thereby allowing them to make sure the full amount of wages to be paid to them so as not to threaten the economic life of workers. Thus, it is prohibited that an employer unilaterally set off workers' claims with the claims owned by the employer. However, if reasonable grounds for recognizing that the employer’s consent was obtained when setting off against workers’ wage claims with the employer’s consent exist objectively, it shall not be in violation of the main sentence of Article 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act. However, in light of the purport of the principle of full-time payment of wages, determination that the consent was based on the employee’s free will should be strictly and carefully conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 201 October 23, 2001).