The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution on the grounds that workers B, C, and D had withdrawn the Defendant’s wishing to punish the Defendant after instituting a prosecution on the violation of each of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act, among the facts charged in the instant case, against workers B, C, and D (crime List Nos. 1 through 3). The prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing against the convicted portion of the lower judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissed part of the judgment below is separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the guilty part becomes the object of the judgment

2. The gist of the grounds for appeal (five months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant had been punished by a fine several times for the same kind of crime; (b) the total amount of damage inflicted upon the agreed workers is not much than KRW 34 million; and (c) the Defendant reflects his/her mistake; (d) the Defendant appears to have failed to pay wages and retirement allowances due to financial depression and business depression; (e) the Defendant appears to have not been able to be paid wages and retirement allowances; and (e) other circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as embezzlement and breach of trust, do not seem to have any special circumstance to criticize the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too excessive.