The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Article 232(3) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s explicit intent, the withdrawal of the wishing to punish or the expression of the wishing not to punish may be made until the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. Thus, even if the worker expresses his intention not to punish after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, it cannot be effective under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act or Article 44

The judgment below

In light of the records, it is just that the court below did not render a judgment dismissing a public prosecution on the ground that the court below did not render a judgment on dismissal of a public prosecution on the grounds that the defendant expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant for violating the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act among the facts charged in the case of this case, and the violation of the Labor Standards Act regarding workers AM, N, AO, K, and AP, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains errors of mistake of facts, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles on the grounds for sentencing is ultimately unfair sentencing

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.