However, in light of the fact that “E makes it difficult for the Defendant to receive compensation from the Defendant,” it should be deemed that there was no agreement between the Defendant and E to deduct the amount of compensation from the wage, considering that the Defendant and E did not agree to deduct the amount of compensation from the wage, since the Defendant did not make a monthly payment for the amount of compensation, it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement on the deduction between the Defendant and the Defendant, the number of laundry and the amount of compensation cannot be deemed to have been made, the number of laundry and the amount of compensation to be responsible for the Defendant, and the written confirmation of the customer submitted by the Defendant cannot be the basis for the agreement between the Defendant and E, etc.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. If there is a ground for dispute as to the existence of the obligation to pay wages, etc., it shall be deemed that there is a reasonable ground that the employer has not paid such wages, etc. so it is difficult to recognize that the employer had an intention to commit the crime of violating the Labor Standards Act. Whether there is a ground for dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc. shall be determined in light of the reason for refusal of payment, the ground for such obligation, the organization and size of the company operated by the employer, all the matters such as the purpose of the business, and all other circumstances at the time of dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay wages, etc.