All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant expressed his/her intent of dismissal by stating that the factory is closed to workers around July 26, 2018, and thus, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay wages to workers for a portion of August 2018.

2) Of the workers, G and H received a substitute payment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the part on acquittal in the reasoning), the fact that K, F, L, G, H, andO among the employees was employed by the instant company even after August 3, 2018. As such, the Defendant is also obligated to pay the said employee wages after August 3, 2018. 2) In so doing, even if it is not recognized that the said employee had worked for the period after August 3, 2018, it constitutes a case where the said employee’s annual paid leave requirements or had actually worked for the period after August 3, 2018, it constitutes a case where the said employee was suspended due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said employee a shutdown allowance equivalent to 70/10 of average wages for the period after August 3, 2018.

2. Determination of erroneous determination of facts by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the date of retirement of workers

A. The Defendant also asserted in the lower court that this part of the grounds for appeal are the same, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) contrary to its stated reasoning, the Defendant’s expression of his/her intent to dismiss verbally while notifying his/her employees of the closure of business; (b) contrary to its assertion, it was not around July 26, 2018, but around August 3, 20

B. In addition, the lower court, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, cannot be deemed to have proven, without reasonable doubt, that the Defendant maintained the status of the employee of the instant company even after August 3, 2018, by notifying the employees of the closure of business.