The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too unfluent and unfair.

2. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it even in the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances is not much specified, and the injured workers are also many.

However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime.

It seems that the defendant did not pay wages and retirement allowances in bad faith.

A substitute payment was made to damaged workers.

There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine for the accused.

There is no change in the circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

When comprehensively considering the above circumstances and the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.