The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below on the defendant is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the number of damaged workers recognized by the lower court was 67 persons; (b) the total amount was 900 million won or more; (c) the amount of damage was recovered; and (d) a substitute payment was made by substitute payment; and thus, (b) the Defendant’s direct effort was not made; and (c) the dispute over delayed payment of the wage in this case was continued for about five years after around 201 and it appears that the economic suffering of the victimized workers would not have been significant, there is sufficient need to punish the Defendant with severe punishment.

On the other hand, the defendant led to the confession of facts constituting a crime and reflects on the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed, and the person related to the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant decided to transfer the management right of the company to the side of the trade union for workers who suffered damage in around 2011, and accordingly, he was the chairman of the trade union at the time he was appointed to the representative director. After that, the defendant was in contact with the damaged workers due to education on board the deep-sea fishing vessel and long-term deep-sea fishing vessel for the maintenance of their livelihood, and there was an error that the defendant did not take follow-up measures such as transfer of shares for substantial management by the trade union side or for the sale of the company to a third party. However, at the time, the defendant was on board the deep-sea fishing vessel, but there was no responsible property to contribute to the recovery of damage to the above company. At the time, the defendant intentionally avoided management normalization or restoration of damage to the victimized workers.