Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Fines 3,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The amount to be paid to F by mistake of fact or misunderstanding of legal principles is different from that of F, and H does not have to pay the Defendant as wages free from labor.

2) The sentence of the lower court (No. 1: a fine of 2 million won, and a fine of 1 million won: a fine of 2: a fine of 2: a fine of 1 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E’s punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s judgment ex officio, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the second court cannot be maintained any more.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined next to this.

3. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the F’s statement, labor contract (F), average wage and retirement allowance calculation statement, and police interrogation protocol against Defendant A, etc., the fact that Defendant A delayed payment of wages and retirement allowances to F is sufficiently recognized, as shown in No. 2 attached Table 1 of the judgment of the second instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below No. 2 is just, and the defendant A's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. The part concerning H’s violation of the Labor Standards Act 1) No. 2 of the lower court’s judgment is in accordance with the Labor Standards Act.