All judgment of the first instance is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (with respect to all the judgment of the court of first instance)

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) from March 2013, the Defendant is not liable for the wages of the employees previously worked.

B. Each sentencing of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: the fine of 2.5 million won, and the second instance judgment: the fine of 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each appeal case against the defendant against the above judgment of the court of first instance was joined in the court of first instance, and the facts constituting the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is imposed on them. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the second instance court as to the Defendant’s argument, the instant company was jointly invested and established by the Defendant, G, M, and J, the fact that the Defendant and G were in charge of their duties, ② G was in charge of its representative director from the establishment to February 2, 2013, but G was in charge of coffee production and factory management, but the Defendant was in charge of franchise and other external businesses, such as franchise business, as it was called a complaint or planning director, and was in charge of the business area between the Defendant and G, ③ was in charge of the Defendant’s business area, ③ was in charge of franchise and other external businesses, such as franchise business, etc., upon asking the Defendant before the execution of the factory operation expenses or the head office operation expenses, and ④ was recognized as having the Defendant

In light of these facts, the defendant is even before he takes office as a representative director on March 2013.