The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In order to recognize that the victim expresses his/her wish not to punish a person or withdraws his/her wishing to punish a person for the crime of non-violation of punishment, the victim shall express his/her wish in a manner that is obvious and reliable, and withdrawal of his/her wishing to punish a person after instituting a public prosecution shall be made to the court prior to the pronouncement of the first instance judgment

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17264, Feb. 23, 2012). In this case, no evidence can be found to deem that the court had expressed an intention not to punish a worker until the judgment of the first instance was rendered on February 20, 2013.

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of non-compliance with an intention to act in violation of the Labor Standards Act among the facts charged in this case.

2. In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted a mistake of facts and a misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal along with unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in such grounds for appeal on the third and fourth public trial of the lower court, and left the grounds for unfair sentencing as

In such a case, the appeal shall not be permitted to be filed with the Supreme Court on the ground of a new argument that the judgment of the court of first instance contains an error of finding the facts about the first and third crimes.

3. Meanwhile, according to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only where the court below rendered a sentence of death or imprisonment with or without labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten

Therefore, in this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against the defendant, the reason that the amount of punishment in the original judgment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.