A. Where there are grounds for dispute as to the existence of obligation to pay wages, etc., there are reasonable grounds for the employer to pay wages, etc.

It should be viewed that an employer had the intent to violate Article 36 and Article 109(1) of the Labor Standards Act.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In this regard, the employee E’s assertion on the payment of unpaid wages, such as there was no objection against the working hours, wages, etc. while the employee E works, and there was a reason to refuse payment because the Defendant was not able to receive payment.

B. On or after December 28, 2014, the waiting time after 13:00, which the lower court acknowledged in relation to labor, was merely an individual machine time after workers E retired, and thus, cannot be deemed as working hours, and the rest time was set to two hours at 12 hours and three hours at 24 hours at 24 hours.

(c)

On or after December 28, 2014, the lower court recognized the hours of work of workers E based on the data on the selective examination of some CCTV details corresponding to the three-day period of work. This is against the principle of trial on evidence.

2. Determination

A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court under the Criminal Procedure Act has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review based on the judgment of the court of first instance, but also has the nature of the so-called ex post facto review that has considerable elements of the ex post facto review. Therefore, the appellate court’s determination of the propriety of

Therefore, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the trial process, when the appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first deliberation and make an ex post facto determination, it is reasonable to maintain that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is inconsistent with logical and empirical rules.