The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a person who operates a stock company E (hereinafter “instant company”) at the time when a mistake of fact-finding F works for the Defendant, not the Defendant, the F did not receive wages and retirement allowances, the Defendant’s violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, ① the company of this case paid wages for work from the first day of each month to the last day of the following month, ② the company of this case was entrusted to H from April 2008 to October 2012, but the defendant was at fault with the defendant as to whether H embezzled the company’s money, and the fact that H and F were discharged from the company of this case on November 10, 2012.

According to the above facts, the obligation of the instant company to pay wages and retirement allowances to F on November 2012 shall be deemed to have occurred after the Defendant started to operate the instant company again, and in particular, on the ground that the actual operator was changed during the worker’s working period, it cannot be deemed that the operator at the time of retirement is liable to pay only the part corresponding to the working period during which he/she operated the company. Thus, the lower court is justifiable in holding that the Defendant is liable for the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act and the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits due to the act of failing to pay the full amount of wages and retirement allowances on November 2012 without an agreement on extension of the payment period. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is acceptable.