All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution as to the violation of the respective Labor Standards Act against B, C, and D among the facts charged in the instant case, the violation of the respective Labor Standards Act against E, and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since the defendant and the prosecutor appealed only to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the dismissal of prosecution became final and conclusive.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the case of 2019 Highest 957) are limited to Defendant Q Q (hereinafter “victim”).

(2) At the time of concluding a contract with the executive secretary, the Defendant was scheduled to enter into an extension contract with the S for the three-month period of April 18, 2019, and in fact, the Defendant entered into an extension contract with the S for the lease of tinsan for the three-month period of April 18, 2019. Since the Defendant had the intent and ability to supply the tin secretary’s seat, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud. Nevertheless, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. (2) The

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

3. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s judgment on the erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The lower court, based on evidence, found the following circumstances, i.e., ① the lease agreement between the Defendant and Daisan owner was expected to be terminated on April 10, 2019, and the said lease agreement was difficult to be extended normally due to the Defendant’s financial problem. At the lower court court’s court’s court, the Defendant was in arrears before and after April 2019, and it was extended one month after the termination of the contract. However, the Defendant was ultimately tight.