The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant entered into a labor contract with D and entered into a comprehensive wage agreement, and the aforementioned comprehensive wage agreement is valid, and the Defendant paid all wages under the aforementioned comprehensive wage agreement, so there is no wage that the Defendant is obligated to pay to D. 2) It cannot be deemed that D had overtime work and holiday work, and even if D had overtime work and holiday work, the transportation cost that the Defendant paid to D should be deducted from the unpaid wage.

3) Even if the above inclusive wage agreement is null and void, the Defendant believed that the above inclusive wage agreement is valid and paid all wages therefrom, so the Defendant did not have an intention to violate Articles 109(1) and 36(1) of the Labor Standards Act. (b) Punishment (one million won of a fine) sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the facts charged, the Defendant, as the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) in C at the time of harmony, is an employer who runs the business of manufacturing optical instruments using 300 full-time workers.

The Defendant is working for the instant company from September 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017.

The total amount of wages, such as overtime allowances of retired workers D, was not paid 7,387,760 won within 14 days from the date of retirement without any agreement between the parties on the extension of each payment date.

B. Determination on the argument that the comprehensive wage agreement is valid, that D cannot be deemed as having worked overtime, and that the transportation cost that the Defendant paid to D ought to be deducted from the unpaid wage (as to the argument of 1.A.1) and 2), the Defendant asserted to the same purport, and the lower court did not accept the above argument on the grounds of the circumstances known through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

The above judgment of the court below is compared with the records.