The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable as the sentence (2 million won in penalty) sentenced by the court below is too large.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

There is no criminal offense against the defendant beyond probation.

However, wages in arrears for workers are anti-social crimes that threaten the survival of workers living together with their families living together with every month beyond the employer's non-performance of the duty to return under the labor contract.

It seems that the defendant did not suffer from the worker and his/her family members due to delayed payment of wages over several months.

On April 17, 2002, the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment on several occasions, including the record of being sentenced to a fine for a violation of the Labor Standards Act.

In full view of all the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the judgment of the lower court exceeded the bounds of its discretion.

As there is no change in the sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too large.

Therefore, the defendant does not accept the defendant's unfair argument.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.