The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant, on October 26, 2012, who was prior to the employee E’s retirement, deducted the right to operate D’s “D” from G in a partnership relationship, and thus, the Defendant cannot be said to be a business operator liable to pay E wages and retirement allowances. 2) The amount already paid to the employee E exceeds the unpaid wages and retirement allowances as set forth in the lower judgment.

B. Taking into account the fact that the Defendant did not actually operate the business and that there is no criminal power for the same kind of crime, the lower court’s punishment (fine 700,000) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant and G decided to operate an entertainment service business in the trade name of D with the investment of funds. On May 1, 2012, the fact that the Defendant and G registered the business under the sole name of Defendant and up to November 25, 2012, registered the business under the said D and the fact that E did not pay wages and retirement allowances as indicated in the lower judgment within 14 days from November 10, 2012, on which the employee E retired.

Therefore, the defendant is the employer who has the authority and responsibility to implement the respective provisions of the Labor Standards Act, and as long as the defendant did not pay wages and retirement allowances within the statutory deadline, the crime of violation of the Labor Standards Act is established. Therefore, this part of the defendant'

B. The lower court appears to have mitigated a fine of one million won in a summary order, taking into account the fact that the Defendant denied his/her responsibility to pay wages and did not agree with the victimized employee up to the trial. The lower court appears to have mitigated a fine of one million won in the summary order, taking into account the fact that the Defendant operated D with G and Dong business and the Defendant did not have the same criminal power. The lower court did not have any special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the lower judgment, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character