The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is consistent with an oral agreement to pay KRW 5 million monthly remuneration when the Defendant’s hospital business is in progress to E, but in the process, E did not perform the above business and provided a little amount of cooperation for about 20 days so that he/she would run the business in the building only when necessary, and does not work at the Defendant’s place of business from March 4, 2016 to June 17, 2016.

The defendant and defense counsel held that the defendant and defense counsel were on the fifth trial date of the court of first instance that the sentencing was unfair on the part F of workers at the trial date.

The argument was asserted.

그러나 항소 이유서 제출기간 내에 제출된 항소 이유서에 “ 피고인은 우선 고소인 F에 대한 부분을 항소하는 것이 아님을 밝힙니다.

In addition, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance.

Since it clearly stated the reasons for appeal, the reasons for appeal contain unfair sentencing.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if the sentencing is included in an unfair judgment, the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable due to the fact that the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances that serve as the conditions for the sentencing specified in the records and arguments (the defense counsel has recovered the F’s damage by deposit with the worker F).

One of the arguments (in August 31, 2018, reference materials) was not submitted, and it is doubtful whether the defendant can be deemed to have voluntarily paid wages if the F has withdrawn a compulsory auction application with payment of overdue wages as alleged by the counsel.

In addition, the Defendant still does not deny the crime against the employee E and does not make efforts to recover the damage. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below and the court below, and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, namely, the Defendant served as the head of the administrative office from March 4, 2016 to June 17, 2016.