A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) indicated the working conditions by transmitting Kakao Stockholm messages to G, and presented a labor contract specifying the working conditions. As such, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Labor Standards Act due to failure to specify the working conditions in the instant facts charged, there was an error of misapprehending the facts.

B. In light of the facts of prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles, 1) misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, 1) misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of the fact that G appears to have had a definitive intent to work for G by the end of July 2016, 2) the Defendant exempted the payment of wages for a week by early termination of the labor relationship with G, and 3) it cannot be said that the application of the provisions on pre-determination allowances under the Labor Standards Act is different depending on the existence of the remaining period of work and the length of the period. In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of violating the Labor Standards

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of KRW 300,000) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport as the above grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion.

In full view of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning, the lower court can be sufficiently convicted of violating the Labor Standards Act due to the failure to specify the working conditions in the instant facts charged.

In light of the above, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the circumstances stated in the lower judgment, namely, ① a written statement (the 24th page of the trial record) submitted by the Defendant to the effect that it is a labor contract between G and G, does not have a signature or seal of G, and eventually, a labor contract has not been prepared (the 31th page of the evidence record).