근로기준법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had been engaged in the job offer procedure, and the person who is the head of the management headquarters in the above procedure applied for the interview schedule, and the vice president of H directly conducted an interview against F. As such, the Defendant was aware of the employment of F by reporting the employment of F from the head of the management headquarters, which is a physical person separate from H.
It is reasonable to view it.
However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The lower court determined: (a) the F reported the job offer advertisement of H and sent the resume to H vice president by e-mail; (b) after having interview with the person who is the chief of the J Management Headquarters and the vice president of H; (c) entered into a verbal labor contract with H and only the vice president of H; (d) the person who is appointed by H as the chief of the D from H was only sent text messages and mail messages; (c) the Defendant was unaware of the Defendant; (d) the Defendant did not have been delegated with the authority to employ D employees; (d) the Defendant did not report the employment of F to H; (d) the F was transferred from H, L, G, and electric railroad to the business site at H, and the fact that the head office or Seoul office of D was not located; and (e) the business entity that was the business entity that was performed by H under the direction of H was the former business entity.
On the part of K, the wind 7 business was requested to D. However, according to the fact that the Defendant had already refused the above request by the K, etc., the Defendant had employed F without authority despite the fact that the Defendant had not delegated the employment authority to H. Thus, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that F was employed as D’s employee. Ultimately, there was a considerable reason that the Defendant had not paid wages to F.
Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had the intent to commit a violation of the Labor Standards Act.
It is insufficient to see, and otherwise recognized.