The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendant, while claiming that the sentence of the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable (the defendant explicitly withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles to the same purport as the court below rendered at the second trial of the court below). The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unafford and unfair.

2. We examine the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing between the two parties. The crime of this case committed by the defendant is not less than the nature of the crime in light of its content and result, degree of damage, etc., the total amount of damages due to delayed payment of wages and retirement allowances of approximately KRW 136 million to five workers, and the total amount of damages has not been paid up to two years, and the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are recognized.

However, the facts of the crime of this case were led to the trial, and the defendant made a confession of all the facts of the crime of this case and against the mistake thereof. In the trial of the case, the above worker's complaint is withdrawn and the defendant's punishment is not wanted, there seems to be no circumstance that can be viewed as intentional concealment of property, and there seems to exist some reasons to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, such as the husband's death and sudden deterioration of management, etc., there are only one time before the crime of this case, there is no specific penalty power, and there is no family relation, there is a possibility that part of the crime of this case can recover from damage through compulsory execution against the defendant's active property, and other various circumstances such as the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, the circumstance and period of delayed payment of wages, the number of workers who suffered damage, the period of work at the workplace, the amount of work after the crime, the previous criminal records and health conditions, etc., as shown in the arguments of this case.